JUDGMENT :

ARAVIND KUMAR, J.

1. These intra-court appeals are directed against the common oral order dated 27.9.2021 passed in Special Civil Application No. 2425 of 2021 with Special Civil Applications Nos. 2473 of 2021, 2897 of 2021, 2901 of 2021 and 2899 of 2021 whereunder learned Single Judge has set aside “so called order passed by respondent No. 11 herein masquerading as an Arbitrator” by exercising the extra-ordinary jurisdiction vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on two grounds, namely (i) on an affidavit/declaration on oath submitted by 11th respondent that such orders came to be passed by him was on account of mistake and undertaking given to the Court that he would not conduct any arbitration proceedings in future; (ii) private respondents namely, appellants herein also undertaking that they would take all necessary steps to undo the damage which had been caused on account of the order passed by the 11th respondent.

2. The short facts shorn off unnecessary details for disposal of these appeals can be crystalised as under:

Land bearing Survey No. 212 situated at Moje Bodakdev, Taluka Daskroi, Ahmedabad admeasuring 6 Acres-00 Gunthas was purchased by the 1st petitioner jointly along with Tarachand Shivkarandas Agrawal from its original owner Budhhalal Zaveri under two registered sale deeds dated 26.8.1980 and 4.6.1981. Accordingly, revenue entries came to be mutated in the name of purchasers and it was duly certified by the jurisdictional authorities. From the date of purchase, petitioners were said to be in lawful ownership and possession of the said land. In the year 2018, the District Collector vide order dated 18.10.2018 granted permission for change of land use to non-agricultural purposes in favour of petitioners. Respondent no. 1 herein, through his Power of Attorney Holder i.e. 2nd respondent herein, Shri Ashokbhai Keshavlal Luhar, after a period of 40 years of the execution of the sale deed without laying challenge to the abovestated sale deeds questioned the order of granting nonagricultural permission by filing revision application raising several contentions and also contending that original owner viz. Budhhalal Zaveri had executed a “notarized will” in favour of Naranbhai Dantani (father of 1st respondent) and as successor 1st petitioner had acquired title to the subject property. During the pendency of the said revisional proceedings, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed Arbitration Case No. 112/2020/02 by appointing the 11th respondent herein as the Sole Arbitrator and also prayed for interim relief by impleading various statutory authorities.

3. Contending inter-alia that neither there is any privity of contract nor any written agreement between the petitioners and original respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (appellants herein) for invoking the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the Act”) and respondent No. 11 herein has no legal authority or power to decide any dispute between the parties particularly in the absence of any agreement to said effect sought for quashing of the arbitration case filed by the appellants herein before the 11th respondent herein and to impose exemplary costs on the ground of the said proceedings being patently void, illegal, nullity, without competence and jurisdiction and 11th respondent does not have power to initiate Arbitration proceedings and without having any force of law, he is conducting the proceedings.

4. On appellant Nos. 1 and 2 herein as well as 11th respondent herein, who proclaimed to be an arbitrator appointed by the appellants herein were called upon to submit explanation as to the basis on which they had commenced the arbitration proceedings and 11th respondent had passed the interim directions to the authorities, he appeared before the learned Single Judge and filed an affidavit of undertaking admitting thereunder that on account of mistake on his part as well as limited understanding and limited knowledge, such orders were pass