- (1.) THE present appeal has been filed by the appellants-applicants under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996(hereinafter referred to as the said Act), challenging the order dated 24th September, 2005, passed by the District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur(hereinafter referred to as the Court below )in Arbitration Application No. 21/2005, whereby the Court below has rejected the application of the appellants-applicants filed under Section 9 of the said Act.
(2.) AS per the case of the appellants-applicants, the applicants had entered into two agreements dated 16.10.1999 and 2.2.2000,with the respondent Shri D.R.B. Nath (Raju Nath) in respect of Plot No. 30, Mission Compound, Ajmer Road, Jaipur, which plot was agreed to be developed and utilized for commercial complex. According to the appellants, it was agreed that the respondent would be entitled for 45 % of the covered area or market value and the appellants would be entitled to 55% of the covered area or market value, as per the terms and conditions of the said agreements. Subsequently the appellants put up the construction, however, the J.D.A. issued a notice dated 18.5.2002 to the effect that the said construction was illegal, as the construction was of commercial nature. It appears that thereafter the disputes arose between the parties and the appellants-applicants submitted an application under Section 9 of the said Act seeking interim measures before the court below, which application came to be rejected by the Court below vide the impugned order. At the out-set, it is required to be noted that though the impugned order is dated 24th September, 2005, no effective steps appear to have been taken by the appellants till this date to get the present appeal heard even at the admission stage. It is also pertinent to note that the appellants-applicants had moved an application seeking appointment of Arbitrator under Section 11 of the said Act for resolving the disputes between the parties, however the said application was also dismissed for default by the designated Court on 23.3.2011. Hence, it clearly transpires that the appellants were never vigilant in pursuing with the proceedings pending in the Courts. As a result thereof, the impugned order has remained in force since last seven years. Under the circumstances, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed on that ground alone. So far as the merits of the appeal are concerned, it has been sought to be submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Court below has materially erred in law in considering the clause contained in the first agreement dated 16.10.1999 only to hold that there was no clause containing arbitration clause, whereas the subsequent agreement dated 2.2.2000 specifically contained the arbitration clause which has not been dealt with by the Court below. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the respondents are trying to create third party interest in the property in question, jeopardizing the 55% interest of the appellants in the said property. In the opinion of the Court, there is hardly any substance in the said submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants, in as much as if the appellants were vigilant about their rights, they would have not allowed the application seeking appointment of arbitrator dismissed for default and kept the present appeal pending for seven years at the admission stage. Though, it was sought to be submitted that the application seeking restoration of the said application has already been filed, it will not have any bearing on the merits of the present appeal. The issue with regard to provision for referring the disputes to the Arbitrator in the agreement, this Court is not required to decide the same as the present appeal arises out of the proceedings under Section 9 of the said Act. It is needless to say that if and when the application seeking appointment of arbitrator is heard and allowed by the Court, all the disputes between the parties would be referred to the arbitrator. It is also pertinent to note that if the respondents have committed any breach of the terms and conditions of the agreements in question, the appellants would be entitled to the damages that may be decided by the arbitrator, if and when appointed. As such the appellants herein have slept over their rights for number of years and ,therefore, would not be entitled to the interim injunction as prayed for in as much as the injunction sought is in the nature of equity and equity does not help to those who sleep over their rights for a long time. In that view of the matter, there being no merits in the present appeal, the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. ;