FAO No. 716 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 716 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 2.12.2009 Susham Singla ..Appellant v. M/s Jagtumal Murari Lal and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. V. K. Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Puneet Jindal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. M. L. Sarin, Senior Advocate with Mr. Hemant Sarin, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 3. .. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 30.10.2007, passed by the learned Court below in an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, `the Act'), whereby the prayer for interim relief during the pendency of objections filed to the award of the Arbitrator, was dismissed. During the pendency of the present appeal before this Court, the objections to the award of the Arbitrator have been finally dismissed vide order dated 30.10.2009. In the aforesaid factual matrix, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 3 raised a preliminary objection stating that the present appeal challenging an interim order has been rendered infructuous, as the objections have already been decided finally by the learned court below. In response to the preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 3, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the present case, the learned court below had recorded prima facie opinion on certain facts in the impugned order, which at the time of final determination of the lis were decided in favour of the appellant, which make out a good case for setting aside of the impugned order. He further submitted that the properties in dispute are FAO No. 716 of 2008 [2] required to be protected till such time the award of the Arbitrator, which is enforceable as a decree of the civil court, is executed, otherwise on account of any action on the part of the respondents, the claim of the appellant may be frustrated or the same may result in multiplicity of litigation. However, in the alternative, the following statement was made: “Since prima facie the findings recorded in the impugned order dated 30.10.2007 have been finally adjudicated upon by Additional District Judge, Patiala vide his order dated 30.10.2009, the present appeal has become infructuous because the application for grant of interim measure was till the decision of the objection petition filed by the appellant. The appellant wants to make an application afresh under Section 9 of the Act in view of the changed circumstances. Liberty may be granted.” To the claim of the appellant regarding opportunity to file a fresh application under Section 9 of the Act, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 3 submitted that there is no need to make any statement regarding the position of law as the provisions of the Act are explicit. The parties to the dispute are ad idem on the issue that the present appeal has been rendered infructuous considering the fact that the same was against the interim order passed during the pendency of the objection petition filed against the award of the Arbitrator and objections have finally been decided. As regards liberty sought by the appellant, in my opinion, the provisions of Section 9 of the Act are quite clear and wide in application, which provide that 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 of the Act, apply to a Court for various interim measures as are enumerated therein. It has further been provided therein that the Court in that case has the same power for making orders as it has for the purpose of, and in relation to, any proceedings before it. The fact that life of an interim order passed in main proceedings is only till the decision of the main dispute cannot be disputed. However, still Section 9 of the Act enables a party to move application for any interim measure at all the stages before the award is enforceable in terms of Section 36 of the Act, i.e., execution thereof as a decree of the civil court. Considering the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, there is no bar in filing a fresh application for interim measure at the stage at which the proceedings are. FAO No. 716 of 2008 [3] The appeal is disposed of with the above observations. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 2.12.2009 mk