ORDER

Usha Mehra, J. The material question for consideration in this appeal is with regard to the power of the Trial Court in directing the continuation of interim injunction even after having finally disposed of the petitioner.

2. In order to determine this question, we must have a quick glance to the relevant facts of the case. Shri Hazoor Singh, respondent alleged to have entered into an agreement to sell certain properties to the appellant on 10th March, 1989. It has been alleged that pursuance to the said Agreement of sale, possession of these properties was delivered to the appellants on their making the payments. However, the said Hazoor Singh, during his life time did not execute the Sale Deed in terms of the Agreement. The appellants accordingly as per Clauses 5 and 6 of the agreement moved an application for appointment of an arbitrator. The arbitrator was appointed. Since no one on behalf of the respondent appeared before the arbitrator hence the arbitrator made and published the ex parte award on 15th September 1989. The said award was filed in the court. In court also no one appeared nor filed any objections hence the Award was made rule of the court on 19th December, 1989. It is an admitted case of the parties that Shri Hazoor Singh died on 17th May, 1992. Late Hazoor Singh during his life time did not challenge the award of the Arbitrator nor decree passed by the Court. However, on 25th September, 1993 Shri Khazan Singh, son of late Shri Hazoor Singh sought for the setting aside of the decree passed by the court of Additional District Judge thereby making the award rule of court. Along with that application Shri Khazan Singh moved an application for condensation of delay. The learned Additional District Judge condoned the delay and allowed Shri Khazan Singh as Legal heir of deceased Hazoor Singh to challenge the award. On 16th April, 1994, Shri Khazan Singh moved an application under Section 41 read with Schedule 11 of the Arbitration Act. Order 26 Rule 9, Order 40 Rule 1 read with Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC seeking an interim order against the operation of the judgment and decree passed by the court on 19th December, 1989 and also for interim arrangement with regard to the standing crop. On 27th April, 1994 the Additional District Judge passed interim order making interim arrangement with regard to cultivation of the crop on these Khasras and deposit of amounts. Review sought by the appellant that interim order was dismissed by the trial court.

3. On the application of Shri Kazan Singh ex parte decree was set aside. Shri Khazan Singh respondent was permitted to raise objections against the award dated 15th September, 1989. After hearing the counsel for the parties the, Trial Court set aside the award vide its orders dated 11th January, 1996. However, by the impugned order the Trial Court not only set aside the award made and published by the arbitrator but gave directions that till the disposal of question of title by the Revenue Authority the interim arrangements directed by the court in April, 1995 would continue. In order to ensure that the interim arrangements made by the court during the pendency of the suit to continue direction was also issued to the S.H.O. Police Station Alipur to ensure that parties adhere to the interim arrangements made by the court till such time the Revenue Authority decides the question of ownership inter se the parties.

4. It is the direction given by the Trial Court in the impugned order which is under challenge. Counsel for the respondent contended that since the award was set aside by the impugned order but proceedings being still pending, hence the Court below had the jurisdiction to pass interim order made under Section 41(b) of the Arbitration Act. Mr. S. K. Chaudhary, appearing for the respondent further contended that the order passed by Shri R. C. Jain, Additional District Judge dated 7th April, 1995 thereby making the arrangement of allowing the harvesting on deposi