Mr. Amit Rawal, J.: - By this order, I intend to dispose of three F.A.O.Nos.1531, 1532 and 1533 of 2010 as the common questions of law and facts involved in all the three appeals are the same. The facts are being taken from FAO No.1531 of 2010.

2. This is a classical case where the objects and the reasons, preceding the proclamation of Act No.26 of 1996, which provided that the arbitration procedure should be fair, efficient and the role of the Courts should be minimal in the arbitration proceedings, have been thrown to the wind and is analogous to the procedure being followed in a Civil Court, inasmuch as that the dispute between the parties to the lis has arisen out of execution of an agreement to sell dated 1.10.2002. Thus, in my view, the intention of the Legislature in its wisdom, though had proclaimed vide Act No.26 of 1996, minimising the role of the Court and as well as expeditious disposal/resolution of the disputes through arbitration, has not been achieved. In order to appreciate the controversy between the parties to the lis, it would be apt to give brief facet of the matter.

3. An agreement to sell dated 1.10.2002 was allegedly executed between M/s Jagtumal Mu