ORDER :

R. Subramanian, J.

1. The applicant in Application No. 2292 of 2019 challenges the order of the learned Master dated 08.02.2019 made in EP No. 124 of 2018, in and by which, the learned Master had directed the respondent/applicant herein to approve DRP 2014, to allot 330 meters expansion of the existing jetty (MLT-1), to allot an area of 300 square meters to setup truck drivers resting area and allot 3.75 acres of land to install additional storage facility to the petitioner within a period of six weeks. The Execution Petition in EP No. 124 of 2018 was laid by the respondent herein seeking execution of the award of the Arbitral Tribunal dated 28.09.2017.

2. The Execution Petition was resisted by the judgment debtor/applicant herein on various grounds. The above order came to be passed in the Execution Petition over ruling the objections of the judgment debtor/applicant herein. Aggrieved, the applicant has come forward with this application seeking to set aside the order of the learned Master under Order 14 Rule 12 of the Original Side Rules.

3. When the above applications were taken up for hearing Mr. Vijay Narayan, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondent/decree holder raised the question of maintainability of the Appeal. Considering the nature of the proceedings, Counsels were required to address arguments on the maintainability of the Appeal under Order 14 Rule 12 of the Original Side Rules.

4. I have heard Mr. S. Parthasarathy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Krishna Ravindran, for the applicant and Mr. Vijay Narayan, learned Advocate General assisted by M/s. K. Gowtham Kumar, appearing for the respondent.

5. In support of his contention that the appeals are not maintainable, the learned Advocate General would submit that an appeal against the order of the Master made in an execution proceeding launched under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, cannot be maintained in view of the provisions of Section 5 read with Section 37(1) of the said Act. Elaborating on his submissions, Mr. Vijay Narayan, learned Advocate General would submit that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, being a Special enactment and self contained Code an appeal remedy, not otherwise provided for under the Act, cannot be availed of by the parties, more so, when the same is prohibited under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. He would draw my attention to Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which reads as follows:

5. Extent of Judicial Intervention:-Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, in matters governed by this Part, no judicial authority shall intervene except where so provided in this Part.

6. Relying upon the provisions of Section 5, extracted above, the learned Advocate General would submit that the judicial intervention in the process of arbitration is subject to the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and no judicial authority can intervene in proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, except where there is a provision for such intervention. The learned Advocate General would also point out that Section 8, Section 9, Section 11, Section 17, Section 34 and Section 37 are some of the provisions which provide for intervention by a Judicial Authority in the course of arbitration.

7. He would also draw my attention to the provisions of Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which provides for appeals against some of the orders passed during the course of the arbitration proceedings or in proceedings challenging the award under Section 34. Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, reads as follows:

37. Appealable orders.--

(1) An appeal shall lie from the following orders (and from no others) to the Court authorised by law to hear appeals from original decrees of the Court passing the order, namely:--

(a) refusing to refer the parties to arbitration under section 8;

(b) granting or refusing to gra