Judgment :- 1. C.R.P.No.1643 of 1990 arises out of O.S.No.1948 of 1998. C.R.P.No.1644 of 1998 arises out of O.S.No.1612 of 1998. Both C.R.P.Nos.2205 and 2206 of 1998 arise out of O.P.No.172 of 1998. 2. In all these cases, the parties are same and the revision petitioners are also same. In Koyambedu market for collecting parking fees, the same was entrusted to the respondent in all these revisions on the basis of the agreement dated 18.2.1997. It is for the period of one year from 18.2.1997 to 18.2.1998. The total amount payable is Rs.1,04,20,000. Since the respondent committed default in payment, show cause notice was issued. Immediately the respondent filed original application before this Court as O.P.No.655 of 1997 invoking Arbitration clause and interim orders obtained and on that basis continued the collection. On 18.2.1998, the said application was dismissed. The main reason for dismissing the application was the licence period also came to an end. On 19.2.1998, the right of collecting the interim parking fee was entrusted to Ex-serviceman Corporation Limited for a period of three months. Immediately. respondent again filed O.A.No.74 of 1998 to continue the collection of fee work beyond the licence period. Since he did not get any interim orders, the same was withdrawn on 9.3.1998. 3. After withdrawing the original application before this Court respondent filed suit in O.S.No.1948 of 1998 on the file of Second Assistant City Civil Court, Madras and obtained interim injunction in I.A.No.4766 of 1998. It is from the said order, C.R.P.No.1643 of 1998 arises. 4. Respondent obtained ex parte interim order of injunction and again collection work, which was entrusted to Ex-Serviceman Corporation was taken over by him and every day he began to collect a huge amount and at the same time without paying any amount to the petitioners. On 17.4.1998, both sides were heard by the City Civil Judge and an order was passed by the Judge that the respondent herein should pay an amount of Rs.17,54,000 and he was further directed to pay Rs.20,84,000 every two months. The respondent did not comply with the above condition. At the same time, respondent again filed another suit as O.S.No.2612 of 1998 on the file of the second Assistant City Civil Court, Madras and again obtained interim injunction. That injunction was to restrain the petitioners herein from auctioning the collection work. 5. The respondent did not comply with the above condition. At the same time, respondent again filed another suit as O.S.No.2612 of 1998 on the file of the second Assistant City Civil Court, Madras and again obtained interim injunction. That injunction was to restrain the petitioners herein from auctioning the collection work. 5. We must understand that the interim order in O.S.No.1948 of 1998 and O.S.No.2612 of 1998 were passed by the same Presiding Officer i.e., the Second Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras and it is only appropriate to note that it was on 17.4.1998 the very same Presiding Officer passed a conditional order that the respondent should deposit certain amounts. After passing the conditional order, the very same Presiding Officer passed the order in O.S.No.2612 of 1998 on 21.4.1998. 6. It is against these interim orders, C.R.P.Nos.1643 and 1644 are filed. On 17.6.1998 after hearing both sides, the interim order in I.A.No.1698 in O.S.No.2612 of 1998 was vacated. On 30.6.1998, the respondent withdraw O.S.No.1948 of 1998. In July, 1998, petitioners held auction and new contractor was appointed for collection of parking fee. In the meanwhile, the respondent again filed O.P.No.172 of 1998 on the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai in which two Interlocutory applications were filed one to restrain the petitioners herein from interfering with the respondents collecting of parking fee and the second to restrain the petitioners herein from confirming the auction held on 3.7.1998. It is against those orders the other two revisions are filed. 7. Even though I have narrated so much of facts, when these matters came up for admission, the respondent also entered appearance and represented that injunction application has been heard in O.P.No.172 of 1998 and orders are reserved. In view of the submission I did not think of admitting the matters on that date and the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners also submitted that the orders are awaited on any date. On 19.8.1998, orders were passed dismissing both the interim applications. 8. From the above narration of facts it seems that eventhough revisions are filed, the subject matter of the revisions viz., the two orders are not now in existence. They have been vacated, i.e., I.A.No.6390 of 1998 in O.S.No.2612 of 1998 from which C.R.P.No.1644 of 1998 arises, was dismissed on 17.6.1998 and nothing survives in C.R.P.No.1644 of 1998. 8. From the above narration of facts it seems that eventhough revisions are filed, the subject matter of the revisions viz., the two orders are not now in existence. They have been vacated, i.e., I.A.No.6390 of 1998 in O.S.No.2612 of 1998 from which C.R.P.No.1644 of 1998 arises, was dismissed on 17.6.1998 and nothing survives in C.R.P.No.1644 of 1998. Likewise, in C.R.P.No.1643 of 1998, the respondent himself has withdrawn the suit and therefore that revision also has become infructuous. On 19.8.1998, I.A.Nos.9398 of 1998 and 9913 of 1998 which are the subject matter of the other two revisions were also dismissed by the lower court. The revisions are filed against the ad interim orders in those cases. Since the orders have been dismissed on merits, those revisions also have to be treated as infructuous. But unfortunately, on the very next day, i.e., on 20.8.1998, respondent again moved lower court in O.P.No.172 of 1998 for the very same relief and the lower court was again gracious enough to oblige him with an interim order. The photo copy of the interim order was also brought to my notice and the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this is an act without jurisdiction and statutory authorities have been harassed by the respondent and the lower court also has shown too much leniency towards the respondent in passing the impugned order. 9. When that was brought to my notice, I immediately suspended the same and I further directed the Commissioner of Police to take possession of the entire market place and I also directed the police that the respondent shall not enter the premises thereafter. In compliance with my direction, the City Commissioner of Police took necessary precautionary measures and the market place was entrusted back to the petitioners and on 29.8.1998 both the counsel agreed that the market has now been taken possession of by the petitioners. 10. O.P.No.172 of 1998 is filed under Sec.11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The relief sought for in that petition is that the lower court should appoint a mutually acceptable Arbitrator, conduct the proceedings according to law and pass an award and thus render justice. Even though the revision in C.R.P.No.2205 of 1998 is filed under Art.227 of Constitution of India, against the interim orders, when the facts were brought to the notice of the court the application before that court is not maintainable. Even though the revision in C.R.P.No.2205 of 1998 is filed under Art.227 of Constitution of India, against the interim orders, when the facts were brought to the notice of the court the application before that court is not maintainable. This Court is entitled while exercising Judicial supervision of jurisdiction to take note of the same. 11. Under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, appointment of Arbitrator is to be made as provided under Sec.11 therein. The relevant portion of the Sec.11 reads as under: “Appointment of Arbitrators:(1) A person of any nationality may be an arbitrator, unless otherwise agreed by the parties. (2) Subject to Sub-sec.(6), the parties are free to agree on a procedure for appointing the arbitrator or arbitrators. (3) Failing any agreement referred to in Sub-sec.(2), in an arbitration with three arbitrators, each party shall appoint one arbitrator, and the two appointed arbitrators shall appoint the third arbitrator who shall act as the presiding arbitrator. (4) If the appointment procedure in Sub-sec.(3) applies and, (a) a party fails to appoint an arbitrator within thirty days from the receipt of a request to do so form the other party or, (b) the two appointed arbitrators fail to agree on the third arbitrator within thirty days from the date of their appointment. the appointment shall be made, upon request of a party, by the Chief Justice or any person or institution designated by him. (5) Failing any agreement referred to in Sub-sec.(2), in an arbitration with a sole arbitrator, if the parties fail to agree on the arbitrator within thirty days from receipt of a request by one party from the other party to so agree the appointment shall be made, upon request of a party, by the Chief Justice or any person or institution designated by him. (6) Where under an appointment procedure agreed upon by the parties, (a) a party fails to act as required under that procedure; or (b) the parties, or the two appointed arbitrators, fail to reach an agreement expected of them under that procedure; or, (c) a person, including an institution, fails to perform any function entrusted to him or it under that procedure, a party may request the Chief Justice or any person of institution designated by him to take the necessary measure, unless the agreement on the appointment procedure provides other means for securing the appointment. (7) A decision on a matter entrusted by Sub-sec.(4) or Sub-sec.(5) or Sub-sec.(6) to the Chief Justice or the person or institution designated by him is final.(8) The Chief Justice or the person or institution designated by him, in appointing an arbitrator, shall have due regard to, (a) any qualification required of the arbitrator by the agreement of the parties, and (b) other considerations as are likely to secure the appointment of an independent and impartial arbitrator. (9) In the case of appointment of sole or third arbitrator in an international commercial arbitration, the Chief Justice of India or the person or institution designated by him may appoint an arbitrator of a nationality other than the nationalities of the parties where the parties belong to different nationalities. (10) The Chief Justice may make such scheme as he may deem appropriate for dealing with matters entrusted by Sub-sec.(4) or Sub-sec.(5) or Sub-sec.(6) to him.“ 12. The respondent has no case that there is an agreement of procedure for appointing Arbitrator between the petitioners and respondent. Further, from the original petition, that is filed before the lower court could be seen that the petitioners can seek appointment of arbitrator only under Sub-sec. (5) of Sec.11 of the Act. Our High Court has also framed Rules regarding appointment of Arbitrators. It could be seen that the scheme has been prepared by the Chief Justice of this Court as per R.O.C.No.608-A/96F1, dated 20th February, 1996. From the scheme, it is only the Chief Justice could appoint Arbitrator and Subordinate Courts are not holding jurisdiction. The relevant portion of the scheme is also extracted as under. ”1. This scheme may be called the Appointment of Arbitrators by the Chief Justice of Madras High Court Scheme, 1996. 2. From the scheme, it is only the Chief Justice could appoint Arbitrator and Subordinate Courts are not holding jurisdiction. The relevant portion of the scheme is also extracted as under. ”1. This scheme may be called the Appointment of Arbitrators by the Chief Justice of Madras High Court Scheme, 1996. 2. Submission of the request:- The request of the Chief Justice under Sub-sec.(4) or Sub-sec.(5), or Sub-sec.(6) of Sec.11(sic.) shall be made in writing and shall be accompanied by- (a) the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof, (b) the names and addresses of the parties of the arbitration agreement, (c) the names and addresses of the arbitrators, if any, already appointed, (d) the name and address of the person or institution, if any, to whom or which may function has been entrusted by the parties to the arbitration agreement under the appointment procedure agreed upon by them, (e) the qualifications required, if any, or the arbitrators by the agreement of the parties, (f) a brief written statement describing the general nature of the dispute and the points at issue, (g) the relief or remedy sought, and (h) an affidavit, supported by the relevant documents, to the effect that the condition to be satisfied under Sub-sec.(4) or Sub-sec.(5) or Sub-sec.(6) of Sec.11. as the case may be, before making the request to the Chief Justice, has been satisfied. 3. Authority to deal with the request:- Upon receipt of a request under paragraph 2, the Chief Justice may either deal with the matter entrusted to him or designate any other person or institution for the purpose. 4. Forwarding of request to designated person or institution: Where the Chief Justice designates - any person or institution under paragraph 3, he shall have the request along with the documents mentioned in paragraph 2 forwarded forthwith to such person or institution and also have a notice sent to the parties to the arbitration agreement. 5. Seeking further information: The Chief Justice or the person or the Institution designated by him under paragraph 3 may seek further information or clarification from the party making the request under this scheme. 6. Rejection of request: Where the request made by any party under paragraph 2 is not in accordance with the provision of this scheme, the Chief Justice or the person or the institution designated by him may reject it. 7. 6. Rejection of request: Where the request made by any party under paragraph 2 is not in accordance with the provision of this scheme, the Chief Justice or the person or the institution designated by him may reject it. 7. Notice to affected persons: Subject to the provisions of paragraph 6 the Chief Justice or the personal or the institution designated by him shall direct that a notice of the request be given to the parties to the arbitration agreement and such other person or persons as may seem to him or is likely to be affected by such request to show cause, within the time specified in the notice, why the appointment of the arbitrator or the measure proposed to be taken should not be made or taken and such notice shall be accompanied by copies of all documents referred to in paragraph 2 or, as the case may be, by information or clarification, if any, sought under paragraph 5. 8. Withdrawal of authority: 9. Intimation of action taken on request: The appointment made or measure taken by the Chief Justice or the person or the institution designated by him in pursuance of the request under paragraph 4 shall be communicated in writing to- (a) the parties to the arbitration agreement; (b) the arbitration, if any, already appointed by the parties to the arbitration agreement; (c) the person or the institution referred to in paragraph 2 (d), (d) the arbitrator appointed in pursuance of the request. 10. Request and communications to be sent to Registrar: All requests under this scheme and communications relating thereto which are addressed to the Chief Justice shall be presented to the Registrar of this Court, who shall maintain a separate Register of such requests and communications. 11. Delivery and receipt of written communications: 12. Costs for processing requests: 13. Interpretation: If any question arises with reference to the interpretation of any of the provisions of this scheme, the question shall be referred to the Chief Justice, whose decision shall be final. 14. Power to amend to scheme:- The Chief Justice may from time to time, amend by way of addition or variation any provision of this scheme. 13. Since the appointment of Arbitrator has to be made under the scheme prepared by the Chief Justice of High Court, Madras, the proceedings initiated by the respondent before the City Civil Court, Madras is illegal. 13. Since the appointment of Arbitrator has to be made under the scheme prepared by the Chief Justice of High Court, Madras, the proceedings initiated by the respondent before the City Civil Court, Madras is illegal. The City Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such applications. When the respondent has not adopted that procedure and had filed such an application only because of interim order, that shows lack of good faith in him. It is also to be noted that the respondent is well aware of the procedure for he himself moved this Court on earlier occasions for the very same purpose twice. On one occasion interim order has been granted and subsequently vacated. He moved for the second time and no interim order was granted. He was fully aware of the procedure and only fully knowing the same, with a mala fide intention and intending to harass the petitioners, he moved the lower court for the appointment of Arbitrator under Sec.11 of the Act. The lower court has also played its part in obliging the respondent and thus caused a heavy loss to the petitioners. I have deprecated the conduct of the officer when I suspended the interim order passed by him, after interim application was dismissed on merits. 14. In the result, O.P.No.172 of 1998 pending before the 10th Assistant City Civil Court, Madras is struck off the file. C.R.P.Nos.1643 and 1644 and 1645 of 1998 are dismissed as infructuous. C.R.P.Nos.2205 and 2206 of 1998 are disposed of with the observations made above. The connected C.M.Ps. mentioned above are also dismissed. 15. From the narration of facts, it is clear that the respondent was filing suits after suits and was making attempts to cling on to the market and collect parking fees even after the period of contract is over. From the narration of facts, it is further clear that he is abusing the process of court and he was prosecuted vexatious litigations one after another. Under the above circumstances, he must be made liable for the costs in all the four revisions and I quantify the same at Rs.2,500 in each of the revision petitions.