JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed impugning the order dated

07.09.2023 in O.P. (Arb.) No. 259 of 2022 of the District Court, Pathanamthitta in a petition filed by the appellant invoking Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 .

2. The limited challenge put forth against the order impugned is that the same had been rendered on the erroneous premise that the appellant is a decree holder in an award which had been rendered by an arbitrator who had been unilaterally appointed. The District Court had in the impugned order placed reliance on the dictum laid down inHedge Finance Pvt. Ltd. (M/s.) Ernakulam v. Bijish Joseph ( 2022 KHC 591 ). The said reliance, it is submitted is erroneous since the matter before the Court below was only a Section 9 petition, where in Annexure A1 interim order had already been granted by the District Court. The finding in the order impugned that an award had been rendered, and that same is hit by Section 12 (5) and Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is factually erroneous. No award had been rendered in the matter nor