THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3453 and 3454 OF 2011 DT.23.9.2011 Between: M/s. Sri Krishna Enterprises … Petitioner And Paladugu Venkata Murali Krishna Prasad … Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Rama Rao Immaneni Counsel for respondent : Sri G Krishna Murthy The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3453 and 3454 OF 2011 COMMON ORDER: Since these two revisions are connected and the parties are same, they are being disposed of by this common order. The O.P. No. 42 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the Additional District Judge, Guntur is filed to grant ad interim injunction restraining the respondent, his men, agents, assigns, heirs, attorneys etc from carrying out any developmental works like excavating, removing , changing the physical features, altering etc over the petition schedule property and O.P. 43 of 2011 is filed seeking interim injunction restraining the respondent, his men, agents, assigns, heirs, attorneys etc from alienating, encumbering, creating third party interests over the petition schedule property. The said two Original Petitions are filed under Section 9 (1) & (2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 2002. The Court below on 26.7.2011 ordered notice to respondents returnable by 29.8.2011 in said two Original Petitions. Hence, the present revisions. Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 reads as under; 9:Interim measures, etc., by Court A party may, before, or during arbitral proceedings or at any time after the making of the arbitral award but before it is enforced in accordance with (section 36) , apply to a Court- and the Court shall have the same power for making orders as it has for the purpose of, and in relation to, any proceedings before it. (i) for the appointment of a guardian for a minor or person of unsound mind for the purposes of arbitral proceedings; or (ii) for an interim measure of protection in respect of any of the following matters, namely:- (a) the preservation, interim custody or sale of any goods which are the subject-matter of the arbitration agreement; (b) securing the amount in dispute in the arbitration; (c) the detention, preservation or inspection of any property or thing which is the subject-matter of the dispute in arbitration, or as to which any question may arise therein and authorising for any of the aforesaid purposes any person to enter upon any land or building in the possession of any party, or authorising any samples to be taken or any observation to be made, or experiment to be tried, which may be necessary or expedient for the purpose of obtaining full information or evidence; (d) interim injunction or the appointment of a receiver; (e) such other interim measure of protection as may appear to the Court to be just and convenient, It is to be noted that Section 9 of the Act, 1996 itself is an enabling provision seeking interim measures before or during the arbitral proceedings or after the award of the arbitral proceedings. There cannot be any interim application in the said Original Petitions filed under Section 9 of the Act, 1996, since the said Original Petitions itself are for grant of interim injunction, therefore, the petitioner herein has rightly did not file any interim applications. The said Original Petitions are filed in the month of July, 2011 and the Court below has ordered notices on 26.7.2011 returnable by 29.8.2011. Aggrieved by the said order, these two revisions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are filed on 19.8.2011 and this Court even without issuing any notice to the respondent by order dated 20.8.2011 in CRPMP No. 4941 of 2011 in CRP No. 3453 of 2011 granted interim stay not to change the physical features for a period of eight weeks and in CRPMP No. 4942 of 2011 in CRP No. 3454 of 2011 granted interim stay not to alienate the schedule property for a period of eight weeks. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and perused the material available on record. It is to be noted that the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is only to supervise the jurisdiction exercised by the Court below. The Court below itself has no power to grant any interim reliefs in the said Original Petitions and whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought for, is a matter to be considered after hearing the parties. This Court in Gulf Oil Corporation Limited Vs. Singareni Collieries Company Limited[1] held that having regard to the nature of proceedings contemplated under Section 9 of the Act, any interim application by the appellant as filed under Section 9 (ii) (d) of the Act for the same reliefs which are interim in nature are not maintainable. Therefore this Court is of the considered opinion that the Original Petitions filed under Section 9 of the Act, 1996 are meant for grant of interim reliefs and the present two revisions questioning the action of the Court below in issuing notice to the respondent, are misconceived and not maintainable. The revision petitions fail and accordingly they are dismissed with costs. ______________ V.ESWARAIAH,J DT.23.9.2011 TVK THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3453 and 3454 OF 2011 DT.23.9.2011 [1] 2008 (3) ALT 631 (DB)