ORDER : Mohammad Rafiq, J. 1. This application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Act) was filed way back on 26.10.2009 inter-alia with the prayer that an independent arbitrator may be appointed to resolve the dispute between the parties. 2. Case as set up by the applicants in the application is that the applicants Annu Khandelwal, Tushar Khandelwal, Tanay Khandelwal with their family friends namely Dinesh Kumar Papdiwal, Naresh Kumar Papdiwal, Nirmala Munshi alias Munshi, Narendra Kumar Jain and Bharat Kumar Jain purchased a piece of land comprising four plots at Madhav Kunj, Sumel House, Ajmer Road, Jaipur. In pursuance of such sale, the applicants had purchased plot, total ad-measuring approximately 500 sq. yards from Mrs. Prabha Kumari daughter of Raja Jaswant Singh on 12.08.1992 vide two registered sale deeds. Certain servant quarters adjacent to the above plots were purchased by the applicants and aforesaid persons in common vide separate sale deed dated 14.08.1992. Said quarters were purchased for the purpose of making an approach road, which is very clearly mentioned in registered sale deed. Since whole chunk of land as purchased by the applicants and others was not in regular shape, but was rather distorted and there was no proper access and right of way to all plots, therefore, a verbal arrangement was arrived to the effect that the re-sizing and re-adjustment of the plots be done keeping the holding of each share more or less the same and a map was prepared somewhere in January, 1993 to that effect showing the realigned plots A, B, C and D with way of access to each plot. Copy of aforesaid map has been placed on record. It is contended that after re-sizing and re-adjustment of the plots, all plot holders were put in possession of their respective reassessed plots. The applicants build a boundary wall on their plot. As per the new adjustment, plot numbered "C" ad-measuring 505 sq. yards came to the share of the applicants, Plot numbered "D" came to the share of Naresh Kumar Jain and Bharat Kumar Jain, Plot numbered "A" came to the share of Nirmala Munshi and lla Mushi and plot numbered "B" came to the share of Dinesh Papdiwal and Naresh Papdiwal. 3. yards came to the share of the applicants, Plot numbered "D" came to the share of Naresh Kumar Jain and Bharat Kumar Jain, Plot numbered "A" came to the share of Nirmala Munshi and lla Mushi and plot numbered "B" came to the share of Dinesh Papdiwal and Naresh Papdiwal. 3. According to the applicants, plot numbered "D" was in joint ownership of Narendra Kumar Jain and Bharat Kumar Jain, which was sold to Mr. Abhay Kumar Dagda and Mrs. Saroj Jain (the non-applicants) vide two sale deeds dated 27.09.2003. Prior to this sale, the applicants were in possession of the plot numbered "C" and there existed boundary wall on the said plot of the applicants. The applicants and the non-applicants mutually agreed to adjust, settle, realign and re-demarcate the boundaries of their respective lands by exchanging pieces of land for which an agreement was written and signed by the non- applicants for a total consideration of Rs. 4,11,000/- against which the non-applicants received a sum of Rs. 1,11,000/- and the balance amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- was agreed to be paid by the applicants to non-applicants at the time of registration of exchange deed. It is further alleged that non-applicants also accepted in the agreement that the possession of plot numbered "C" was with the applicants along with the portion agreed to be exchanged and also acknowledged that a boundary wall over the same had been constructed. It is contended that as per Clause 12 of the agreement, in case of any dispute relating to the terms and conditions of the agreement, the same shall be referred to arbitration under the provisions of the Act. Despite many reminders, the non-applicants did not get the exchange deed executed, therefore, the applicants had to approach this Court by way of this application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that certain negotiations took place between the parties during pendency of the present arbitration application, according to which they decided not to act upon the exchange deed as referred to above by retaining their right of way as conferred upon them by respective sale deeds dated 12.08.1992 registered in favour of the applicants and sale deeds dated 27.09.2003 registered in favour of the non-applicants. 5. Learned counsel for the non-applicants submitted that neither any exchange deed was ever signed by the non-applicants, nor amount of Rs. 5. Learned counsel for the non-applicants submitted that neither any exchange deed was ever signed by the non-applicants, nor amount of Rs. 1,11,000/- as alleged, was ever received by them. However, he submits that he would have no objection if the present application is disposed off with the clear observation that whatever right of way parties acquired by respective sale deeds registered in their favour, which has been transferred to them through the original purchaser-buyer, they would continue to retain the same. 6. In these circumstances, present arbitration application stands disposed off with the observation that the applicants shall retain right of way as they acquired pursuant to registered sale deed dated 12.08.1992 and non-applicants shall retain right of way as they acquired pursuant to registered sale deed dated 27.09.2003 and the exchange deed and the agreement of exchange asserted by the applicants and denied by the non-applicants, shall not be acted upon by either of the parties for any purpose whatsoever. 7. With the aforesaid observation, application stands disposed off.