The rejection of amendment applications in arbitration proceedings based on delay is not an interim award and cannot be challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

JUDGMENT

Prateek Jalan, J. (Oral)--The present petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ["the Act"] is directed against an order dated 04.11.2019, passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator, who is in seisin of disputes between the parties. By the impugned order, the learned arbitrator has rejected an application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the statement of claim.

2. A suit [CS(OS) 2603/2014] was originally filed by the petitioner herein against three defendants, of whom the respondent herein was the principal defendant and the other two defendants were arrayed as proforma defendants. By an order dated 07.11.2016, the suit, alongwith five other suits pending in this Court, were referred to arbitration before a former Judge of this Court. The relevant paragraphs of the order of reference read as follows:

"Learned counsel for the parties submit that the disputes, subject matter of the present six suits, be referred to a Sole Arbitrator. It is also agreed that the parties will place before the learned Arbitrator certified copies of the pleadings filed in the above matters and the documents filed along with the pleadings.

Accordingly, Mr.Justice V.K. Shali, a former Judge of this Court, Mobile No.9717495000, is appointed as a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon all the disputes and differences arising between the parties. The learned Arbitrator would proceed ahead from the stage at which the suits are pending. Parties will place before the learned Arbitrator certified copies of the present pleadings and the documents filed along with the pleadings. The Arbitrator shall fix a date and a time and inform the same to the counsel for the parties."

Emphasis supplied.

3. It appears that the six proceedings have been taken up by the learned arbitrator together. In the suit out of which the present proceedings arise, the petitioner claims the following reliefs:

"(A) Decree of declaration thereby declaring that the Saving Bank Account No. 040201000021080 with Indian Overseas Bank, Rajindra Place, Usha Road, New Delhi opened by defendant No.1 in the name of plaintiff and utilization of funds deposited therein, was illegal and unauthorised and fraudulent and does not bind the plaintiff and by way of consequential relief, restraining defendant No.1 from attributing payments deposited therein as payment made to plaintiff in any manner.

(B) Decree of declaration thereby declaring that the Sale Deed dated 28-07-2010 registered on 29-07-2010 on registration No. 20174 in Book No.1, Vol. No. 17926 on Pages 168-179, in the office of Sub Registrar, Sub District-II, Janakpuri, New Delhi, obtained by defendant No.1 from plaintiff, as void liable to be delivered up and cancelled, and by way of consequential relief directing the Registering Authority, Sub Registrar-II Janakpuri, New Delhi to delete the above described documents, from its records of registered instrument maintained in his office.

(C) Decree of mandatory injunction thereby directing the defendant No.1 to return the original documents above-described Sale Deed dated 28.09.2007 bearing registration No. 19384 Book No. 1 Vol. No. 15107 on pages 166-196 registered with Sub Registrar-II, Janakpuri, New Delhi to plaintiff free from all encumbrances and liens.

(D) Grant any other or further order(s) considered just, fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (E) Award"

Emphasis supplied.

4. On 21.07.2017, the petitioner sought amendment of statement of claims for inclusion of va