ORDER 1. By this petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 the petitioner has made a prayer that the Court should appoint an independent expert preferably a Civil Engineer/Architect to visit the site and record measurements and to take inventories lying at site viz. Sector 5A, IIE, Sidcul, Haridwar and to file a report in this Court. It is also requested that the Court should direct the engineer/expert to inspect and verify the workmanship of the respondent as well as the quality of materials supplied and to file a report. 2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the petitioner entered into a contract/MoU dated 1.1.2006 with the respondent for planning of residential units on three plots in Sector 5A IIE, Sidcul, Haridwar, Uttrakhand and for construction of residential units as per the specifications and completion of the project. The contract contained an arbitration clause which provided that in case of any dispute between the parties in respect of MoU or in respect of payment of bills or quality of work, the same shall be referred to the Arbitrator. The agreement also provided that all the disputes shall be subject to Delhi jurisdiction. 3. From the letters/correspondence placed on record by the petitioner, it appears that a dispute arose between the parties in respect of quality of work/completion of work and in respect of payment. The petitioner also filed a complaint before Sr. Superintendent of Police, Roshnabad, Haridwar making allegations against respondent of hiring ‘gundas’ and interfering with the work of the petitioner. A meeting between the petitioner and respondent had also taken place on 23rd February, 2009 at Patanjali Yog Peeth at Haridwar to resolve the dispute. 4. It is apparent from the agreement and from the material placed by the petitioner on record that the entire dispute is in respect of the immovable property situated in Uttrakhand, Haridwar. The dispute is about the measurements of the work done, quality of work and the bills. The dispute is to be resolved through arbitration. The petitioner has asked this Court to appoint an expert for taking measurements and to assess the quality of work. I consider that under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court cannot be used as an instrument or tool to collect evidence for a party. The dispute is to be resolved through arbitration. The petitioner has asked this Court to appoint an expert for taking measurements and to assess the quality of work. I consider that under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court cannot be used as an instrument or tool to collect evidence for a party. The measurements of the work and the quality of work are to be assessed by the Arbitrator on the basis of evidence to be produced by the parties. This Court cannot appoint an expert to collect evidence, which can be used by the petitioner later on. The petitioner can make an application before the Arbitrator for appointment of an expert. If the Arbitrator considers it necessary, the Arbitrator would pass an order accordingly. 5. Even otherwise, I consider that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application. An application under Section 9 can be made before a Court of appropriate jurisdiction where if on the same facts a suit had been maintainable. The relief sought in the present application is in respect of immovable property. The immovable property is situated in Uttrakhand, only the Court at Uttrakhand would have jurisdiction. It is settled law that by consent the parties cannot confer jurisdiction on the Court which otherwise would not have jurisdiction. The parties, though by consent, can chose one out of the two Courts, having jurisdiction. In the present case, the subject matter of the agreement between the parties had no connection with Delhi. The property is situated in Uttrakhand. The construction was to be done in Uttrakhand thus, only Court at Uttrakhand has jurisdiction. I find that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this petition. The petition is dismissed on this count also.