D.K.Seth, J. - (1.)The deficit Court fee has since been filed on 7th March, 2003 under filing No.-A-3017 of 2003 the defect is removed. The appeal is in order.
(2.)An application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) was filed by the appellant. In the said proceedings, an appointment of Receiver was obtained. The respondent filed an application for vacating the order. Ultimately, however, the proceeding under Section 9 of the 1996 Act was dismissed for non-prosecution resulting into the discharge of the Receiver. Subsequently, the appellant filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) seeking modification of the order of dismissal of the proceedings for non-prosecution discharging of the Receiver. It was sought to be contended that the nature of the application was that of an application for review. But this contention was negatived. The application was found to be one under Section 152 CPC. Therefore, the learned Trial Judge had rejected the application. Against this order, the present appeal has since been filed.
(3.)The learned counsel for the appellant insisted that this application, though described as one under Section 151 CPC is in the nature of an application for review, an extended limb of the proceeding under Section 9 of the Act. Therefore, the rejection of the said application is a refusal to grant interim measure appealable within the meaning of Section 37(1)(a) of the Act. Alternatively, the learned counsel contended that if it is treated to be an application for review, then also it is an appealable order. Therefore, the appeal is maintainable.
;