: 1 : USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 755 OF 2010 Hanumant Nagesh Sawant .. Petitioner v/s. Capt. Deepak Rajaram Salvi .. Respondent ......... Mr. Roshan Sonawane i/by M.B. Shirsat for the petitioner Mr. A.Y. Sakhare i/by YKS Legal for the respondent ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATE : 22nd JUNE, 2010. P.C. : 1. Heard learned advocates on both sides. The respondent was the owner of the property as of August, 2005 and the Development Agreement is said to have been executed by the respondent in favour of the petitioner in August, 2005. Subsequently, the respondent sold the said property to one Mr. Rajaram Masane on 21st December, 2009. Thereafter, this petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act has been filed on 18th January, 2010 and ad-interim : 2 : order was passed restraining the respondent from creating third party rights and / or part with possession in regard to the suit property being order dated 4th March, 2010. 2. I have heard learned Counsel on both sides. It was brought to the notice of the Court that the MOU was entered into between the petitioner-present respondent and said Rajaram Masane being MOU dated 20th August, 2009 by which present petitioner had agreed to receive Rs.75 lakhs and a part of the amount has already been paid to the petitioner. 3. After having considered the relevant dates and after noting the fact that the respondent has sold the property to Rajaram Masane on 21st December, 2009, on the day of the filing of this petition, the respondent had no control over the property in regard to which the Development agreement is alleged to have been executed. In such a case, there is no question of respondent now being restrained from creating third party rights and / or parting with possession as the said over tacts have already been committed by the respondent. In view of : 3 : this, no case is made out for admission of this petition. Hence, following order is passed. ORDER (i) Arbitration Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. (ii) Ad-interim order dated 4th March, 2010 stands revoked. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)