The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court's jurisdiction to entertain a dispute after the disposal of the suit with the consent of the parties is limited, and challenges to arbitration awards must be filed within the prescribed time under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

1. By way of this order I propose to decide both the applications being I.A. No. 19089/2013 and I.A. No. 13811/2014 under Section 151 CPC filed by the defendant No. 1 in this suit for permanent and mandatory injunction filed by the plaintiff against the defendants.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff and defendants are the sons of Late Shri B.C. Kohli. The parties herein along with their father were members of a Hindu Undivided Family (‘HUF’). The HUF was the owner of property bearing No. 31, Golf Links, New Delhi - 110003 admeasuring about 1250 sq. yards which comprises of a ground floor, first floor and a Barsati on the terrace (hereinafter referred to as the “suit property”). The said HUF was dissolved soon after the demise of Shri B.C.Kohli on 15th April, 1978 and was survived by three sons namely, defendant No. 1, defendant No. 2, plaintiff and 5 daughters.

3. The suit as well as interim applications were listed before Court on 20th January, 2005 and the summons in the main suit and notice in the interim applications were issued. The Court also passed the interim order. The suit was disposed of with the consent of the parties by 27th April, 2007 by referring the parties to the arbitration.

4. The learned Arbitrator Tribunal passed an interim award dated 18th October, 2012 whereby it was held that the daughters of deceased Shri B.C. Kohli were entitled to a share in the entire HUF property of which the deceased Shri. B.C. Kohli was the Karta in the same manner as the sons as no partition has been effected by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 or partition effected by a decree of a Court prior to 20th December, 2004 as envisaged in Section 6(5) Explanation of the Hindu Succession Act,1956.

5. By way of the application being I.A. No. 19089/2013 for inter alia, declaration that the order dated 18th October, 2012 is non est in the eyes of law.

6. It is stated in the application by the defendant No. 1 that reference was made to the Arbitral Tribunal to decide the disputes between the parties and the sisters were admittedly not parties to the suit and thus, the sisters could not have been made party to the arbitration proceedings. It is stated that the Arbitral Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction by impleading the daughters of Late B.C. Kohli and passed an interim award directing division of the suit property equally among all the children of Late B.C. Kohli treating them as co-parceners relying upon the Section 6(5) of the Hindu Succession Act,1956. Thus, the interim order dated 18th October, 2012 is non-est in the eyes of law having been passed in excess of the jurisdiction.

7. Defendant No. 1 filed an application under Section 16(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) seeking passing of the final award without reference to the order dated 18th October, 2012 which was dismissed by the Arbitral Tribunal on an erroneous reasoning that he has no power of review.

8. It is stated that the disputes as raised by the plaintiff against the defendant No. 1 regarding construction activity carried out in suit property, denying access to the terrace of the suit property and causing hindrance to the free ingress and egress to the first floor of the suit property which were subject matter of the instant suit, have been duly settled by the parties to the suit.

9. It is further stated that the repair work as alleged by the plaintiff was duly finished much before when the suit was filed in 2005 which included white wash etc. of the suit property which was carried out by the defendant No. 1 in the area within the exclusive possession of the defendant No. 1. It is also stated that no inconvenience was caused to the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 by such repair work and renovation work and there is no debris lying in the suit property and the same was removed after completion of the repair work.

10. It is stated that the pla