CR No.2055 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.2055 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.07.2009 Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. ..Petitioner Versus M/s Madan Rice and General Mills & Ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: Mr.G.S.Sandhawalia, Advocate, for the petitioner. --- VINOD K. SHARMA,J.(oral) CM No.8885-CII of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. The petitioner is exempted from filing the certified copies of Annexures P.1 and P.2. CR No.2055 of 2009 The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this court under CR No.2055 of 2009 2 Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order dated 21.10.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Feorzepur, whereby appeal filed by the defendant/respondents was allowed and injunction granted by the learned trial court restraining the defendant/respondents from alienating the suit property stands vacated. The plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating, in any manner, a house situated on Thakralan Wali Gali, Makhu Tehsil Zira District Ferozepur along with a shop situated at Dana Mandi, Makhu and a Rice Sheller situated on Amritsar Road, Makhu on the plea that there was shortage of paddy valuing Rs.2,73,30,835. It was pleaded that FIR was also registered, and that the Arbitrator had also given an award in favour of the petitioner. Learned trial court granted injunction on an application moved under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code). However, learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur accepted the appeal. Learned lower appellate court held that the application moved by the petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code was not competent in view of the law laid down by this court in the case of M/s Jagdish Raj and brothers Vs. Jagdish Raj and others 2003 (1) CCC 367, wherein this court has been pleased to lay down as under:- “ Once an application is made by opposite party for referring the matter to arbitration in terms of arbitration CR No.2055 of 2009 3 agreement, thereafter Court cannot decide the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, as nothing further is required to be done (Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 7).” Mr.G.S.Sandhawalia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has challenged the order by placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs. M/s NEPC India Ltd., AIR 1999 SC 565 to contend that a party to an arbitration agreement can approach the Court for interim relief not only during the arbitral proceedings but even before the arbitral proceedings, under the 1996 Act, and that the Court can pass interim orders under S.9. Arbitral proceedings, commence only when the request to refer the dispute is received by the respondent as per S.21 of the Act. This judgment does not advance the case of the petitioner, as contended. Admittedly, no application under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was made prior or during arbitration proceedings. Rather the stand taken is that the Arbitrator has already passed an award in favour of the petitioner herein. Once the award becomes the decree of the court the petitioner can execute the award and move the Execution Court for attachment of property, but under no stretch of imagination it can be said that independent suit for permanent injunction could be filed to restrain a party from alienating the suit property. The suit filed itself is not competent and thus, the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code is also not competent. CR No.2055 of 2009 4 The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that mere wrong mention of provisions cannot be a ground to deny the benefit, also cannot be accepted, as the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code in a suit for permanent injunction itself is not maintainable, therefore, it could not be treated to be an application under section 9 of Arbitration Act as contended. The revision petition is, totally misconceived. Order passed by the learned lower appellate court is as per the settled law which calls for no interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K.Sharma) 13.07.2009 Judge rp