JUDGMENT : Banwari Lal Sharma, J. Appellant-New Pinkcity Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. in this misc. Appeal assailed the impugned order dated 10.09.2007 passed by learned District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Arbitration Application No. 415/2007 whereby learned Court below allowed the application of respondent-petitioner submitted under section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and restrained the non-petitioner not to transfer the disputed land in favour of other person and not to initiate construction on the land in dispute and maintain status-quo. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on or about 21.8.2007 the respondent Nanak Das made an application under section 9 of the Arbitration Act before the District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur praying injunction against the appellant-New Pinkcity Griha Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited in terms that the appellant, non-applicant in the said application be restrained from making any construction over the land described in para 10 of the application from making allotment or executing any other document in respect of the said land and to maintain status-quo in respect thereof. The respondent alleged that in the suit earlier filed by him against the respondent for permanent injunction in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division) East, Jaipur City, the appellant having relied upon the arbitration agreement in the document dated 3.6.2000 disputed the maintainability of the suit. By the order dated 19.1.2007 passed in the said suit the application was allowed and the plaint was returned to the respondent, plaintiff in the said suit, for invoking arbitration clause. The said order dated 19.1.2002 attained finality on dismissal of the appeal by the appellate court and revision by the Hon'ble Court. 3. Respondent-applicant in his application under section 9 of the Arbitration Act inter alia contended that the agreement to sell dated 3.6.2000 in favour of the appellant society in respect of the land measuring 1.33 hectares as described in para 10 of the application was forged and fabricated. The appellant society did not acquire any right over the land. The respondent and other co-sharers were seized and possessed of the land. The appellant otherwise also under the law could not acquire any right over the land under an agreement to sell. The alleged sale being in contravention of Section 46-A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act was void. The appellant society did not acquire any right over the land. The respondent and other co-sharers were seized and possessed of the land. The appellant otherwise also under the law could not acquire any right over the land under an agreement to sell. The alleged sale being in contravention of Section 46-A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act was void. The appellant did not obtain any decree for specific performance of contract in respect of the agreement to sell dated 3.6.2000. The appellant society was bent upon to forcibly occupy the land by dispossessing the respondents and it was so attempted on 20.8.2008. The respondent on the allegations, succinctly stated above, prayed for injunction. The said application was registered as Arbitration Application No. 415/2007 in the Court of District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur. 4. In reply to the application appellant society inter alia contended that the respondent's father Panchu and another co-sharers having received the entire sale consideration in cash and by cheques transferred the land in favour of the appellant-society with delivery of possession and the appellant society developed housing scheme over the said land including adjacent lands in the name of Siddharth Nagar-D-Block. The plots as subdivided under the scheme, aforesaid, were allotted to the members of the Housing Society back in the year 1980-81. The charges for land use conversion were also deposited with the State Government and by order dated 24.1.1990 the State Government allowed change of land use and the map of the scheme was for approval. A handsome amount of Rs. 26 lac was deposited in the State exchequer towards conversion charges and an amount of Rs. 38,750/- was deposited towards sub-division charges. The plots under the scheme were in use and occupation of the members/allottee's of the appellant-Society with constructions thereon. The appellant denied that the respondent was in possession of the land or that he had any right over the same. 5. It was also contended in the reply that on insertion of Section 90-B in the Land Revenue Act, 1956 the proceedings were taken up under the said Section on the report of the Tehsildar by the Authorized Officer of the Jaipur Development Authority and on 14.6.2001 final order was passed whereby the land in question was resumed along with the other lands and was placed at the disposal of the local authority under Section 102-A of the Land Revenue Act. The appellant further contended that the bar contained in Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act does not apply to the transfer/sale to the Cooperative Societies. The appellant thus denying the case of the respondent prayed for rejection of the application. The appellant society in support of its reply relied upon documentary evidence viz the order dated 14.6.2001 passed under Section 90-B of the Land Revenue Act, the order of the Additional Collector (Conversion) dated 30.12.1985, the challans evidencing deposit of Rs. 26 lacs towards land conversion charges, the order dated 24.1.1990 of the State Government permitting the conversion of land use, the list of members/allottee's of the society in the records of Jaipur Development Authority, the agreement dated 3.6.2000, affidavit of Kalyan and Panchu, the allotment letters, the copy of the FIR No. 914/2006 of Police Station, Sanganer etc. The appellant in support of the reply filed the affidavit of his Secretary Mahendra Kumar Agarwal and finally prayed for dismissal of the application. 6. After hearing, learned District Judge allowed the application as aforesaid. 7. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 10.09.2007, appellant preferred this misc. Appeal before this court. 8. Ms. Sunita Pareek learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. R.K. Agrawal submits that the impugned order was passed under section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on 10.09.2007. After that the Arbitration And Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 came into force on 01.01.2016 and according to amended Act, section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act was amended and renumbered as follows:- "Section 9 of the principal Act shall be renumbered as sub-section (1) thereof, and after subsection (1) as so renumbered, the following subsections shall be inserted, namely:- "(2) Where, before the commencement of the arbitral proceedings, a Court passes an order for any interim measure of protection under sub-section (1), the arbitral proceedings shall be commenced within a period of ninety days from the date of such order or within such further time as the Court may determine. (3) Once the arbitral tribunal has been constituted, the Court shall not entertain an application under sub-section (1), unless the Court finds that circumstances exist which may not render the remedy provided under section 17 efficacious." 9. She submits that after passing the impugned order dated dated 10.09.2007, respondent-applicant didn't file any application for appointment of arbitrator and failed to refer the matter to Arbitration. 10. She submits that after passing the impugned order dated dated 10.09.2007, respondent-applicant didn't file any application for appointment of arbitrator and failed to refer the matter to Arbitration. 10. After the amendment in the Arbitration And Conciliation Act which came into force on 01.01.2016, within 90 days limitation was there. Neither the matter was referred to arbitrator nor any application was filed for extension of the time by the respondent for appointment of arbitrator, therefore the interim relief cannot be continued for indefinite period without initiation the main proceedings, therefore this appeal may be allowed and the impugned order may be quashed and set aside. 11. Mr. Raghav Sharma learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. R.K. Daga learned counsel for the respondent submits that the appellant-non-petitioner should have apply for arbitration, since he failed to apply for arbitration, therefore the appellant cannot question the issue of appointment of arbitrator. 12. He further submits that the land in question belongs to members of Scheduled Caste, therefore Section 42 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act comes in picture, therefore the agreement itself is void. He submits that the appeal may be dismissed. 13. I have considered the submissions made at Bar. 14. So far as the objection regarding Section 42 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act is concerned, since the provision of section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act are interim measures and the issue regarding enforcement of agreement relates to main arbitration proceedings which is to be decided in the Arbitration proceedings, therefore same cannot be considered in proceedings under section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 15. Further, when respondent invoked, the provision enshrined in section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act for interim relief then he should promptly initiate the arbitration proceedings and file his claim before the Arbitrator which he failed to do so. After coming into force of amendment Act on 01.01.2016, the limitation for initiating arbitration proceeding is 90 days which was neither availed by respondent nor any application was filed for extension of time, therefore one cannot be permitted for indefinite period in the garb of interim relief to enjoy the interim stay in civil matters without initiating the main proceedings by which the rights of parties can be decided. 16. Considering all these facts, this Appeal deserves to be allowed which is hereby allowed and the impugned order dated 10.09.2007 is quashed and set aside. 17. 16. Considering all these facts, this Appeal deserves to be allowed which is hereby allowed and the impugned order dated 10.09.2007 is quashed and set aside. 17. If law permits for any other legal remedy to respondent, he is free to avail the same.