1. Heard Mr. Vadera, learned advocate for the petitioner.
2. Mr. Shah, learned advocate for respondent No.2 is present. Other learned advocates for other respondents are not present at time when the petition is called out and taken up for hearing.
3. The petitioner has taken out present petition seeking below mentioned relief/s:-
"20
(a) That the interim order passed on the amendment application filed below Exh. No.37 be quashed and set aside and the Hon'ble Arbitrator be directed to permit the applicant bank to delete the names of Shri Vijay S. Shah and Shri Chimanlal Jain from the Arbitration Dispute No.04/2010.
(b).......
(c)........"
4. The petition is preferred against interlocutory order whereby the Board of Nominees has not accepted the request of present petitioner to delete the names of Shri Vijay S. Shah and Shri Chimanlal Jain from the Arbitration Case No. 4 of 2010 as party opponents.
5. The writ petition against order passed by the Board of Nominees at interlocutory stage of proceeding related to Arbitration Case No.4 of 2010 does not deserve to be entertained.
5.1 Furthermore if at all anybody could feel aggrieved by interlocutory order passed by the Board of Nominees then it could be said Shri Vijay S. Shah and Shri Chimanlal Jain who, according to present petitioner, are not necessary and proper party to the arbitration case proceedings and yet they are joined in the proceedings. However, said persons have not made any grievance and they have not challenged the said interlocutory order.
5.2 The petitioner who is plaintiff - applicant in the Arbitration Case No.4 of 2010 had moved an application for amendment in the plaint so as to delete the said two persons and the said application is not allowed.
5.3 Resultantly the said persons continue to be party opponents in the proceedings.
5.4 As mentioned above until now the said persons do not appear to have challenged the said order and they do not appear to be aggrieved by the said order.
5.5 The Court is, thus, not inclined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in a petition against interlocutory order.
5.6 A petition against interlocutory order passed in an application requesting the arbitrator to delete parties who were originally named by applicant (i.e. the very applicant / petitioner who has preferred present petition and has filed the Arbitration Suit) in the plaint (i.e. present petitioner) does not deserve to be entertained, more particularly in view of the fact that the said two persons are the purchasers of the property in question.
6. At this stage of the order i.e. before the order could be further dictated learned advocate for the petitioner has requested that petition may be disposed of with appropriate direction to the Board of Nominees to expedite hearing of the arbitration case and to complete the hearing of said arbitration case as expeditiously as possible since the recovery of dues from the respondent is being delayed on account of delay in conclusion of the proceedings.
7. Having regard to the said request made by learned advocate for the petitioner, present petition is disposed of with the observation that board of Nominees will endeavour to hear and decide the arbitration case proceeding as expeditiously as possible. Any unreasonable or avoidable request for adjournment may not be entertained by the Board of Nominees. Subject to the load on roster, Board of Nominees may endeavour to complete the hearing of the proceeding of arbitration case preferably within six months from the date of receipt of present order.
With the aforesaid clarification and observations the petition is disposed of accordingly.
(K.M.THAKER, J.) Suresh* Top