I) A-11 % 16.09.2010 Present: Dr. Shyamla Pappu, Sr. Advocate with Mr. R. Krishnaamorthi, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate with Mr Lalit Gupta, Advocate for the Respondent. + CM No.18057/2009 (Delay) in FAO(OS) 614/2009 * Learned counsel for the Respondent rightly and justifiably does not oppose this Application. We have noted the contents of the Application and are satisfied that the error in computation of the period of limitation is bona fide. Application is allowed and delay in filing the Appeal is condoned. FAQ (OS) 614/2009 & CM 18058/2009 (Stay) The litigation between the parties started with a suit filed by Smt. Rani Parvati Devi (Appellant before us) praying for passing off a decree of permanent injunction in favour of Rani Parvati Devi and against Turner Morrison Ltd., Defendant No.l, Turner Morrison Land Ltd., Defendant No.2 and Shri P.V.Kapur, Senior Advocate, Defendant No. 3, restraining these Defendants, their servants, agents and assignees from interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of the possession of B-25, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi. This resulted into legal actions being preferred by the Defendants in that suit. An Application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was filed Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified by Defendant No.2 in the Suit. Separately an Application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was filed by Defendant No.l alone. The Suit as well as the Application under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act were heard together by the learned Single Judge. Both actions were decided and disposed of on 6*^ March, 2009. In Arb.P.No.446/2007 the Order reads as follows:- "In view of my judgment rendered in CS(OS) 1650/2007 today, this Arbitration Petition/Application also stands decided and is disposed of as such." The Order in the Suit is more comprehensive but essentially set aside the appointment of Mr. P.V.Kapur as the Arbitrator and instead appoints Justice A.B.Saharya (Retd.) as the Arbitrator. There can be no gainsaying that the appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act forecloses any challenge in Appeal except by invoking Article 136 of the Constitution of India. We need not refer to any case other than Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. v. Kewal Singh Dhillon, (2008) 10 see 128. Therefore, an order of appointment of Justice A.B. Saharya (Retd.) as the Arbitrator cannot be challenged before this Court by way of an Appeal. In order to overcome the decision in Punjab Agro (supra) Ms. Pappu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant 13 draws our attention to the fact that the appointment Order dated 6"" March, 2009 was the subject matter of a Review Application which came to be allowed by Order dated 1®"^ July, 2009. Ironically, it is the Appellant who had objected to the maintainability of the Review Application. Be that as it may the argument before us is that an order passed in a Review Application preferred under Order 47 of the CPC is appealable under Order 43 Rule 1 (w) of the CPC. Therefore, according to her the rights conferred or protected by the CPC cannot be ignored. The argument no doubt is attractive, but on consideration we find it devoid of logic. This is for the reason that the initial Order which was sought to be reviewed was itself an Order which could not have been appealed against. This being the position, the Order passed in review is also impervious to an Appeal. For these reasons the Appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. September 16, 2010 mm VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J. MUKTA GUPTA, J.