JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. This appeal is directed against order dated 2.6.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 1, Bhilwara, whereby the application filed by appellant under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the Act') has been rejected. 2. An ex-parte award dated 30.5.2015 was passed by the Arbitrator. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed objections under Section 34 of the Act, before the District Judge, Bhilwara, which objections now has been transferred to Additional District Judge No. 1, Bhilwara. 3. In the meanwhile, proceedings were initiated for execution of the award. The appellant filed application before the Executing Court seeking the stay of the Proceeding, which application was rejected. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4556/2016, wherein on 26.4.2016, order was passed that the Executing Court may go ahead with the auction, however, the same shall not be finalised till the next date. 4. The present application under Section 9 of the Act was contested by the respondent and the Trial Court by its order dated 2.6.2016, has rejected the application on the ground that the writ petition filed by the appellant is pending consideration before the High Court and any order passed by it may be in contravention of the said interim order. 5. In the present appeal, it is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant that the application under Section 9 of the Act was filed based on provisions of Section 36(2) of the Act as amended by Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 ('the Amendment Act'). However, it is also submitted that in view of provisions of Section 26 of the Amendment Act, the appellant was wrongly feed to approach the Trial Court under Section 9 of the Act, as in view of the un-amended provisions of Section 36 of the Act, mere filing of objections under Section 34 of the Act operates as injunction against the enforcement of the award. 6. 6. In view of the fact that now the appellant contends that there was/is no requirement to file the application under Section 9 of the Act, rejection of which, is challenged in the present appeal, the filing of the application and now questioning the validity of the order passed on stay application appears to be misconceived as per the appellant’s own contention and, therefore, though the trial Court has rejected the application without determining the same on merits, if no contention as raised by the appellant has substance, the rejection thereof is of no consequence. 7. Further, the plea now sought to be raised by the appellant regarding non-requirement of seeking an injunction in view of the amended Section 36 of the Act, the said aspect has to be raised by the appellant in the pending writ petition against the execution of the award. With the above observations, no interference is called for in the present appeal, the same is, therefore, disposed of.