Judgment :- H.G. Ramesh, J. This writ petition by M/s. Sovereign Developers and Infrastructure Limited arises out of a proceeding under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Arbitration Act’) in A.A. No.728/2009 and is directed against an interlocutory order dated 23.11.2009 (Annexure-H) made therein by the Court of the VI Additional City Civil Judge (CCH.11), Bangalore City, rejecting I.A. No. 4 field by the petitioner under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for stay of further proceedings in the a foreside proceeding in A.A. No. 728/2009. A.A. No. 728/2009 is field by the respondent-M/s. Paramount Vijetha Holding under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act for grant of an order injunction to restrain the petitioner herein from interfering with its putting up of construction on the schedule property. 2. The aforesaid I.A. No. 4 was filed by the petitioner for stay of further proceeding in A.A. No. 697/2009 on the ground that an application in A.A. No. 697/2009 filed by it earlier under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act for grant of injunction to restrain the respondent herein from interfering with its construction work on the schedule property is pending consideration. 3. I have heard Sri Padmanabha Mahale, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the impugned order at Annexure-H as well as the two application at Annexures-‘A’ and ‘c’ in A.A. Nos. 697 and 728/2009 filed by both the parties under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act. 4. It is stated that a dispute has arisen between the parties relating to a building contract 23.6.2007 and pending adjudication of the dispute, both the parties herein have filed applications in A.A. Nos. 697 and 728/2009 under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act for the interim measures referred to above. the Civil Court, on a detailed consideration of the matter, has rejected I.A. No. 4 on the ground that Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable to applications under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act. 5. In my opinion, a proceeding for an interim measure under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act is almost like an interlocutory application is a suit and hence such a proceeding cannot be construed as a suit within the meaning of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 5. In my opinion, a proceeding for an interim measure under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act is almost like an interlocutory application is a suit and hence such a proceeding cannot be construed as a suit within the meaning of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, Section 10 of the Code Of Civil Procedure is not applicable to proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act. Accordingly, I find no legal infirmity in the impugned order to warrant interference under the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition dismissed.