This writ petition is filed invoking Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging Ext.P7, an injunction order issued by the District Court, on an application filed by the first respondent herein under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’.

2. Respondents 3 and 4, the then owners of an item of property and the first respondent entered into an agreement to build, the first respondent herein being the builder and respondents 3 and 4 being the owners of the land. It appears that respondents 3 and 4 styled themselves as M/s. Vilas constructions’, a firm, the second respondent in this writ petition.

3. As against respondents 2 to 4, a third party filed a suit before a competent civil court and obtained a decree, in execution of which, the item of property in question was brought to sale and the writ petitioner purchased it. He was issued Ext.P1 sale certificate. This was followed by deliver of the property to him. As evidence by Ext.P2. According to the writ petitioner, he is thus in possession of the property. Going by the documents, there is no reason to assume to the contrary.

4. Alleging that disputes have arisen pursuant to the agreement entered between respondents 1 to 4, the first respondent invoked Section 9 of the Act and filed Ext.P4, I.A.No.1795 of 2005 seeking an order of injunction restraining the writ petitioner and respondents 2 to 4 or their agents from doing any work or challenging or altering the present nature of the property and the piles in the said property till the alleged work done by the first respondent is measured out and the value assessed or in the alternative, to pay an amount as stated in the said petition. The impugned Ext.P7 has been issued against the writ petitioner and respondents 2 to 4 on the said petition. It is appropriate in this context to extract the said order of injunction. It reads as follows:

“Upon motion made into this Court by the petitioner’s counsel and upon reading the petition of the said petitioner in this matter held on 18-5-2005 and upon hearing the evidence of the petition and affidavit in support thereof, this Court doth order that an interim injunction be awarded to restrain the respondents or their agents or the present owner of the land in Sy. Nos.142/2 and 3 of Ernakulam village from doing any work or changing or altering the present nature of the property and pile in the property in Sy.Nos.142/2 and 3 of Ernakulam village till measuring the done by the petitioner in the property in Sy.Nos.142/2 and 3 of Ernakulam village and assessing total amount due to the petitioner or in the alternative pay the admitted amount of Rs.16,28,800/- with interest due to the petitioner for the pile work done in the land in Sy.Nos.142/2 and 3 of Ernakulam village or tampering or causing damage to the equipments and materials of the petitioner at the sight or remove the same or from committing any waste in the pile work done in the injunction schedule property.”

5. The question that arises for decision is as to whether the writ petitioner, admittedly, a third party to an alleged arbitral agreement between the respondents and who has, in his favour, a confirmed curt sale and certificate of such sale and delivery of possession, following and arising under an independent decree, could be dispossessed, injuncted or subjected to other court proceedings under Section 9 of the Act?

6. It is apposite in this context to read Section 9 of the Act, which is as follows:

“9. Interim measures etc. by court.— A party may, before or during arbitration proceedings or at any time after the making of the arbitral award but before it is enforced in accordance with Section 36, apply to a Court:-

(i) for the appointment of a guardian for a minor or a person of unsound mind for the purposes of arbitral proceedings; or

(ii) for an interim measure of protection in respect of any of the following matters, namely:-

(a) the preservation, interim custody or sale