Hon’ble Vivek Kumar Birla, J.—Heard Sri Manu Khare, learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 and Sri K.K. Arora, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

2. Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the present revision alongwith Civil Revision No. 431 of 2015 (Smt. Manjusha Premi and others v. Ideal Carpet Industries and others) be heard together as the common controversy is involved in both the revisions and they can be decided by a common judgment. They further submitted that the revisions may be decided at this stage itself as it involves only legal questions and no further records are required to decide the controversy.

3. The property involved in the present dispute is the premises No. S-20/51-1 A, 2A and 3A situated at the Mall Cantt. Road district Varanasi. The facts of the Civil Revision No. 430 of 2015 are being taken up for deciding the controversy as they essentially cover all the relevant facts required in dealing with the controversy.

4. A memorandum of understanding was executed between the parties on 10.4.2006 for sharing transfers of share being held by the opposite parties for Ideal Hotel and Industries Limited to the revisionists-applicants (hereinafter referred as the applicants).

5. On the same date i.e. 10.4.2006 an agreement to sell regarding property in question was executed between the parties. The said agreement was admittedly an unregistered document executed between the parties. Clause 9 of the agreement to sell provided that the venue of the arbitration shall be at New Delhi. It is alleged that the opposite parties illegally terminated the agreement to sell. Admittedly, pursuant to the aforesaid agreement to sell dated 10.4.2006 the sale-deed was not registered and the opposite parties forfeited the amount paid by the applicants.

6. Consequently, a dispute arose between the parties and on 28.10.2006 a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred as the Act) was filed by the Ideal Carpet Company through its Partner Sri Ram Maurya-opposite party No. 2 and Sri Kundan Arya and Sri Ram Arya as the Director of Ideal Hotel and Industries Limited-opposite party No. 3 in the Court of district Varanasi, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 96 of 2006. On the same date i.e. 28.10.2006, the applicants filed a Caveat application under Section 148-A of C.P.C. before the High Court of Delhi.

7. The applicants also on 20.4.2007 independently filed Original Misc. Petition No. 204 of 2007 (Sri Sukhnandan Premi and others v. Mr. Prakash Gupta and another) under Section 9 of the Act before the High Court of Delhi wherein interim order dated 20.4.2007 was passed directing that till the next date of hearing the respondents, their servants, agents and employees are hereby restrained from selling, alienating and transferring possession of the said land bearing No. S-20/51-1 A, 2A and 3A situated at Varanasi.

8. The opposite parties filed an application No. 5172 of 2007 under Order 7 Rule 10 and 11 of C.P.C. read with Section 42 of the Act.

9. The Delhi High Court vide its order dated 31.5.2007 found that the Varanasi Court will have the jurisdiction in the matter as the earlier application under the Act was pending before the Court at Varanasi and therefore returned the Misc. Case No. 204 of 2007 to the applicants to be filed in the appropriate Court having jurisdiction. The review application No. 212 of 2007 was also dismissed on 5.7.2007.

10. Being aggrieved, the applicants filed F.A.O. (O.S) No. 284 of 2007 challenging the aforesaid orders dated 31.5.2007 and 5.7.2007. During hearing of the appeal the Appellate Court vide order dated 13.9.2007 maintained status quo with regard to the properties in question. Subsequently, vide order dated 22.12.2007 the learned District Judge, Varanasi held that this Court has got the jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Sectio