Anoop V. Mohta, J.

Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties heard finally.

2. The Appellant has preferred this Appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’) as the learned Single Judge by impugene order dated 2 September 2015 rejected the section 9 application filed by the Appellant, and refused to grant any injunctory protection in respect of the property described in the MOU dated 31.10.2014/14.8.2014. Admittedly, respondent no.2 is in possession of the property based upon the registered agreement dated 13 August 2014. There is also no issue that full consideration has been paid based upon the agreement. For invocation of section 9 of the Act, the basic mandate is that there should be an arbitration agreement between the parties. Admittedly, there is no such arbitration agreement between respondent no.2 and appellant (Original petitioner). Even the arbitration clause in the third party MOU in no way is sufficient to invoke section 9 Application, merely because the property is the same as respondent no.2 is admittedly not a party to this third party MOU.

3. The presence of the parties in question, in the stated