Sathish Ninan, J.

1. In the arbitration proceedings, an interim order was passed by the arbitrator under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act for short). The operative part of the order reads thus:

“In the light of the above, in the interest of justice and for the protection of the claimant's interest in respect of the subject matter of the dispute, this Tribunal ORDERS PERMITTING the claimant to repossess the vehicle model MARUTI WAGONR VXI bearing Engine No. 4726591 Chassis No. MA3-EWDE-1S00835575 and Registration No. KL-46L-5183 wherever it is found in the lawful manner with police protection, if required, and keep the vehicle in their custody till the disposal of main arbitration.”

2. The petitioner approached the District Court, Thrissur in a petition under Section 17(2) of the Act praying for appointment of an advocate commissioner to attach and take possession of the vehicle. It was numbered as C.M.A. (Arbitration) No. 18 of 2018. The petitioner also filed an interlocutory application as I.A. No. 372 of 2018 with the same prayer. The learned Judge directed issuance of notice to the respondent. Aggrieved by the order for issuance of notice, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 504 of 2018 in the C.M.A. to recall the issuance of notice ordered on I.A. No. 372 of 2018. The grievance projected by the petitioner was that, if notice is issued to the respondent on the application for taking over possession of the vehicle, then definitely it will be giving an opportunity to the respondent to remove the vehicle. However, the court below as per order dated 7.3.2018 dismissed the application. The said orders are under challenge.

3. There is force in the contention that issuance of notice by the court below prior to the taking over of possession of the vehicle, will be affording opportunity to the respondent to remove the vehicle from the jurisdiction of the court or to deal with it otherwise. This Court while considering the powers under Section 9 of the Act regarding grant of interim orders, in Muthukoya Thoopiyakal vs. Union Territory of Lakshadweep and Others, 2011 (4) KLT 941 observed thus:

“A party approaching the Civil Court with a request for an interim measure of protection under S.9 of the Act, will naturally be apprehending some danger or adverse consequences at the hands of the respondents. It is to forestall such danger or adverse consequences that he is approaching the Civil Court under S.9 of the Act. The Kerala Arbitration and Conciliation (Court) Rules, 1997 (the Rules for short) prescribe the form of application to be filed before the Civil Court and the procedure to be followed by the Civil Court. R.3 of the Rules makes the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Practice, 1908 (CPC for short) and the Kerala Civil Rules of Practice, 1971 applicable for verification of pleadings in the case of every application presented before the Court. R.6 enjoins that when an application is made under the Act the Court shall order notice thereof to all the respondents and to such other person as may appear to the Court to be likely to be affected by the proceedings and calling upon them to show cause within the time specified in the notice, as to why the reliefs sought in the application should not be granted. R.11 of the Rules reads as the follows:-

"11. In matters not provided for in these Rules, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Kerala Civil Rules of Practice, 1971 and the circular orders issued by the High Court of Kerala from time to time shall mutatis mutandis apply to all proceedings under the Act including appeals."

If an order on a petition under S.9 of the Act can be passed only after complying with the above procedure and after calling upon the respondent to show cause against granting the relief prayed for, in very many cases the application itself may become infructuous on the happening of the apprehended danger or adverse consequences. Hence, a power to grant an ad