S. Muralidhar, J.

1. There are two questions that arise for consideration in this petition. The first concerns the question of maintainability of this petition which challenges the order dated 18th December 2009 of a learned Arbitrator in an application filed by Respondent No. 1 under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 ('AC Act'). The second question, which arises if the petition is held to be maintainable, is as to who is a proper party to an arbitration proceedings?

Background Facts

2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is by M/s Cadre Estate Private Limited ('CEPL') which claims to have purchased a property bearing No. L-10, New Delhi South Extension Part-II, New Delhi admeasuring 495 sq. yards ('property in question') on 31st December, 2008 for a consideration of Rs.7.50 crores by virtue of a tripartite agreement executed between the Petitioner, Shri Saroj Kumar Bagaria (`Bagaria') Respondent No. 2 herein and the Punjab National Bank ('PNB'), Respondent No. 3 herein in full and final settlement of the claims of PNB against Respondent No. 2 under a One Time Settlement ('OTS'). The Petitioner claims that after the payment of Rs.7.5 crores by the Petitioner on 31st December 2008 directly to the PNB a sale deed was executed with regard to the said property and duly registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Delhi. Upon taking possession of the property, the Petitioner claims to have commenced construction thereon. The Petitioner states that at that stage it received notice in a petition OMP No. 168/2009 filed by Respondent No. 1 Smt. Salochna Goyal ('Goyal') in this Court under Section 9 of the AC Act.

3. In OMP No. 168/2010, Goyal arrayed Bagaria, PNB, CEPL and M/s Standard Chartered Bank ('SCB'), Respondent No. 4 herein, as party respondents. In the said petition Goyal stated that she had entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 30th September, 2008 with Bagaria in respect of the property in question for a total sale consideration of Rs.9.45 crores. Admittedly, out of the said consideration she paid Rs.95 lakhs to Bagaria as earnest money deposit (`EMD'). Goyal stated that she had recently come to know that Bagaria and the PNB had, in collusion with each other and in contravention of the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal ('DRT'), disposed of the suit property to CEPL by a sale deed dated 30th December, 2008, thereby depriving her of her lawful rights in the Agreement to Sell dated 30th September 2008 entered into between her and Bagaria. Goyal drew attention to the Clause 12 of the agreement to sell dated 30th September 2008 whereby the parties had agreed that the disputes or differences between them arising out of the agreement shall be adjudicated through the arbitration of a sole Arbitrator. The appointment of the Arbitrator and the conduct of the arbitral proceedings were to be governed by the AC Act or any other enactment in force at the time of reference or the Award as the case may be. The prayer in the OMP No. 168/2009 filed under Section 9 of the AC Act was for an ad-interim order directing the Respondents to maintain status quo in respect of the property in question.

4. OMP 168/2009 was listed first before this Court on 31st March, 2009. On the said date a learned Single Judge of this Court passed the following order:

"Notice.

Notice is accepted by Mr. Rajiv Garg, counsel for respondent No. 1.

The petitioner in this petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 made respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 as party to this petition who are not parties to the agreement to sell.

It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner does not press these respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 as parties to this petition and their names may be deleted from the array of parties. Accordingly, names of respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 are hereby deleted from the array of parties.

Respondent No. 1 shall file reply to this petition within four weeks. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be