RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.

1. This is a petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the Act), whereby an injunction is sought against the respondent. The injunction sought is that the respondent ought to be restrained from creating third party interest and/or disposing of, selling or mortgaging the immovable property situate in revenue village of Satbari, Mehrauli, New Delhi, forming part of Khasra No. 1103, admeasuring 85 bighas (hereafter referred to as the property in issue).

2. Notice in this petition was issued on 03.06.2013. The notice was made returnable on 10.06.2013. Despite service, on the returnable date there was no representation on behalf of the respondent. The matter was, however, adjourned to 12.06.2013. On 12.06.2013, once again, there was no representation on behalf of the respondent. Consequently, on 12.06.2013 an order of injunction was passed qua the respondent, whereby he was restrained from disposing of, selling, mortgaging or creating third party interest in the aforementioned property. However, on this very date, the petition was disposed of.

2.1 The respondent, thereafter, moved an application being: IA No. 11813/2013, under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short CPC) for recall of order dated 12.06.2013. Notice in this application was issued on 29.07.2013. The notice was made returnable on 27.09.2013. On the said date, accommodation was sought on behalf of the petitioner, which resulted in, the application, being posted for hearing on 29.10.2013. On that date, it was contended on behalf of the respondent that the respondent’s son, who was present in court on 10.06.2013, had wrongly noted the next date as 14.06.2013, as against the correct date, which was 12.06.2013.

2.2 Counsel for the petitioner, while refuting this fact had contended that he would have no difficulty in the main petition being put back on board, as long as the interim order, protecting the petitioner’s interest, is continued.

2.3 Accordingly, the application was allowed in those terms vide order dated 29.10.2013. The main petition was put back on board with the caveat that pending disposal of the petition, the respondent will maintain status quo as to title and possession and/or shall not create any third party interest in the property in issue. Time was also granted to the respondent to file his reply with a corresponding liberty granted to the petitioner to file a rejoinder. The record shows, that this process continued till at least July, 2014.

3. It is in this background that the pleadings in the matter got completed. The arguments in the petition were heard for the first time on 26.11.2014 and thereafter on 01.12.2014, when the judgement in the matter was reserved.

3.1 I may only note that, during the pendency of the present petition, a separate petition under Section 11 of the Act was filed by the petitioner, on 01.11.2014. This petition is numbered as Arb. P. No. 551/2014. Another Single Judge of this court, i.e., Hon’be Ms Justice Deepa Sharma, has issued notice in the said petition, on 10.11.2014, which is made returnable on 12.02.2015.

4. In order to adjudicate upon this petition, the following facts are required to be noticed:

4.1 The petitioner and the respondent have executed a Memorandum of Understanding dated 21.03.2005 (in short 2005 MOU). The 2005 MOU concerns the aforementioned property.

4.2 The recital to the 2005 MOU records that, one, Mr Islam, son of Manphool, resident of Village Satbari, Mehrauli and his predecessors-in-interest, have held tenancy rights prior to consolidation proceedings carried out qua the property in issue.

4.3 The recital further records that the consolidation proceedings vis-a-vis the said property took place in 1953-54.

4.4 In the recitals, there is also reference to the fact that Mr Islam and his predecessors-in-interest have been in uninterrupted possession of the property in issue since the pre-consolidation period and