The main legal point established in the judgment is that an order determining if a property can be divided by metes and bounds amounts to a Final Award, terminating the arbitration proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Navin Chawla, J.

This petition has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') challenging the Order/Award dated 19.12.2018 passed by the Sole Arbitrator. By the said Order/Award the Arbitrator has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner seeking termination of the arbitration proceedings.

2. The parties herein are legal heir of late Mr. B.C. Kohli who passed away on 15.04.1978. The disputes between the parties are related to the succession of following two properties:-

"(1) Property known as 7, Crossroad, Dehradun, and

(2) Residential house bearing no.31, Golf Link, New Delhi."

3. By an order dated 27.04.2007 passed in CS (OS) 73/2005 the parties were referred to arbitration. The Sole Arbitrator passed an Interim Award on 18.10.2012 in the following terms:-

"I, accordingly, hold that all the parties to these proceedings will be entitled to 1/8th share in the following properties:

(1) Property known as 7, Crossroad, Dehradun, and

(2) Residential house bearing no.31, Golf Link, New Delhi."

4. Thereafter further proceedings continued before the Arbitrator. On 21.11.2012 a submission was made by the parties that the properties are not capable of partition by metes and bounds and should be sold and sale proceeds distributed equally amongst the eight owners. Further, the counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 herein submitted that the petitioner herein and respondent no. 7 have relinquished their shares in the aforesaid properties in favour of the respondent no. 2 herein because of which his share would be 3/8th in both the parties. Further submission was recorded that with this share he would be able to suggest how the property can be partitioned by metes and bounds.

5. By a subsequent order dated 28.01.2013, the Arbitrator again recorded the submission of the parties that as far as the Golf Link property is concerned, the same cannot be partitioned by metes and bounds. On the submissions of the counsels that there were certain unauthorized construction in the said property and the L&DO Office may require the parties to deposit certain misuse charges for regularization and/or for removal of the alleged unauthorized construction, a Local Commissioner was appointed for perusing such matters with the authorities. Parties were directed to give a proposal about the manner and the price at which the said property can been sold in the market for consideration. As far as the Dehradun property is concerned, the counsel for respondent no. 2 submitted that the property can be partitioned by metes and bounds.

6. In subsequent proceedings held on 24.04.2014, the counsel for respondent no. 2 submitted that he would give an offer for the Dehradun property. On such submission, the Arbitrator inter alia passed the following directions:-

"Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I direct that the parties may give their offers, for the Dehradun property within the next two weeks. Parties may also inspect the premises along with the intended buyers and no obstruction would be caused by any of the parties to the inspection of the premises by the buyers provided that an advance notice will be given to the parties to these proceedings before any such inspection is carried out. In case no offer is given by Mr. Ramesh Kohli, the matter will be proceeded on the basis of the offers which may be before the Tribunal on the next date of hearing."

7. In the order dated 31.07.2014, the Arbitrator dismissed the application filed by respondent no. 2 seeking appointment of a Local Commissioner to open the bank locker of Late Mr. B.C. Kohli holding therein that even if the same contains any Will of late Mr. B.C. Kholi, the Interim Award passed on 18.10.2012 cannot be reviewed. As far as the two properties are concerned, the Arbitrator passed the following direction:-

"There are merits in the arguments advanced by Mr. Sawhney. As the properties cannot be partitioned by metes and bounds and