Judgment 1. For the reasons given in the application, delay in refiling the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of accordingly. 2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 17-11-2003, passed by the Distt. Judge, Jalandhar, whereby the petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), filed by him was dismissed. 3. The facts, which are relevant for the decision of the present case are that in a dispute between the parties an ex parte award dated 18-7-2000 was passed by the Arbitrator (respondent No. 2). Thereupon, respondent No. 1 filed execution petition under Section 36 of the Act. The execution petition was transferred from the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Jalandhar to the Court of Addl. Distt. Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. In the petition under Section 9 of the Act filed by the present appellant it was alleged that the said execution proceedings were fixed in the Courts at Delhi for 5-9-2003 for filing of the original copy of the award. It was alleged in the said petition that the present appellant was not served a valid notice about the arbitration proceedings and even the impugned award dated 18-7-2000 had not been served upon him and as such he was prevented to exercise a legal right to file petition under Section 33 and 34 of the Act for setting aside the award. It was alleged that these points were brought to the notice of the Court at Delhi by filing objection petition on 26-7-2002 but these objections were withdrawn in view of the order dated 18-7-2003 passed by the Delhi High Court. It was alleged that under Section 31(5) of the Act, it is mandatory to send a copy of the award to the parties which had not been done and as such limitation to file petition under Section 34 of the Act had not started and the execution proceedings pending in the Court at Delhi were premature. It was accordingly prayed that the execution proceedings may be dismissed as premature and in the alternate the enforcement of the award dated 18-7-2000 be stayed till a signed copy of the award it supplied to him. 4. It was accordingly prayed that the execution proceedings may be dismissed as premature and in the alternate the enforcement of the award dated 18-7-2000 be stayed till a signed copy of the award it supplied to him. 4. In the reply filed by respondent No. 1, it was alleged that registered A.D. notice was sent to the parties by the Arbitrator but the appellant did not join the proceedings and was proceeded against ex parte and thereupon ex parte award for Rs. 3,64,780.00 with interest and costs had been passed on 18-7-2000 and the copy of the award was sent to the parties by UPC. It was alleged that the appellant had appeared in the Executing Court at Delhi on 26-7-2002 and copy of the award was attached with the execution proceedings. 5. After hearing both sides and perusing the record, the learned Distt. Judge dismissed the petition under Section 9 of the Act, holding that the Court was not competent to hold the proceedings pending in the Executing Court to be premature nor such a relief was covered under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act. Aggrieved against the order dated 17-11-2003, passed by the Distt. Judge, present appeal has been filed. 6. After hearing the learned counsel and perusing the record, in my opinion, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. Section 9 of the Act reads as under :- "9. Interim measures, etc. Aggrieved against the order dated 17-11-2003, passed by the Distt. Judge, present appeal has been filed. 6. After hearing the learned counsel and perusing the record, in my opinion, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. Section 9 of the Act reads as under :- "9. Interim measures, etc. by Court.- A party may, before or during arbitral proceedings or at any time after the making of the arbitral award but before it is enforced in accordance with S. 36, apply to a Court - (i) for the appointment of a guardian for a minor or a person of unsound mind for the purposes of arbitral proceedings; or (ii) for an interim measure of protection in respect of any of the following matters, namely :- (a) the preservation, interim custody or sale of any goods which are the subject-matter of the arbitration agreement; (b) securing the amount in dispute in the arbitration; (c) the detention, preservation or inspection of any property or thing which is the subject-matter of the dispute in arbitration, or as to which any question may arise therein and authorising for any of the aforesaid purposes any person to enter upon any land or building in the possession of any party, or authorising any samples to be taken or any observation to be made, or experiment to be tried, which may be necessary or expedient for the purpose of obtaining full information or evidence : (d) interim injunction or the appointment of a receiver; (e) such other interim measure of protection as may appear to the Court to be just and convenient. and the Court shall have the same power for making orders as it has for the purpose of, and in relation to, any proceedings before it." 7 From a perusal of the above, it would be clear that under Section 9 of the Act, the Court is competent to pass such interim order which may appear to the Court to be just and convenient even after the making of the arbitral award and before it is enforced. In the present case the prayer of the appellant is that the proceedings pending in the Executing Court may be dismissed as premature or enforcement of the said award dated 18-7-2000 passed by the Arbitrator may be stayed till a signed copy of the award is supplied to him. In the present case the prayer of the appellant is that the proceedings pending in the Executing Court may be dismissed as premature or enforcement of the said award dated 18-7-2000 passed by the Arbitrator may be stayed till a signed copy of the award is supplied to him. In my opinion, such a prayer would not be covered by the provisions of Section 9 of the Act and in any case on the facts and circumstances of the present case, no case was made out for the Distt. Judge, Jalandhar, either to have dismissed the executing proceedings pending in the Court of Addl. Distt. Judge, Delhi as premature or to have stayed those proceedings till a signed copy of the award is supplied to the appellant. It is not disputed before me that the copy of the award was attached with the execution proceedings. It is also not disputed before me that the appellant has appeared in the execution proceedings pending in the Court at Delhi. It is also not disputed before me that so far the appellant has not filed any objection against the award given by the Arbitrator under Section 34 of the Act or otherwise, seeking the setting aside of the award on any ground. As referred to above, the case of respondent No. 1 is that copy of the award was sent to the appellant under UPC. The question as to whether the appellant received copy of the award or not is a question of fact which cannot be gone into in the present proceedings. If the appellant was aggrieved against the award passed by the Arbitrator on any of the grounds whether on merits or otherwise, including non-supply of a copy of the award to him by the Arbitrator, the appellant could have raised all these points by filing objection petition under Section 34 of the Act before the competent Court and if any such objection had been filed the Court would have considered the same in accordance with law. However, in the present case nothing of the kind was done. On the other hand the appellant filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act, which is intended for interim measures etc. by the Court. However, in the present case nothing of the kind was done. On the other hand the appellant filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act, which is intended for interim measures etc. by the Court. In the present case, as referred to above, the Arbitrator has already given the award and the execution proceedings are pending in the Courts at Delhi and admittedly no objection petition under Section 34 of the Act has been filed by the appellant. Under these circumstances, in my opinion, learned Distt. Judge was perfectly justified in holding that no case for holding the execution proceedings to be premature was made out. Similarly, in my opinion, no case was made out for staying the proceedings which were pending before the Executing Court merely on the ground that the appellant had not received a copy of the award from the Arbitrator. 8. In view of the above, in my opinion, no case for interfering with the present appeal is made out. Hence the present appeal is dismissed.