JUDGMENT : Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in regard to the proceedings dated 23.04.2018 of the first respondent in application No.29/2017 in CS/BL/Arbitration case No.19/2017 and quash the same and direct the second respondent to cancel the entry in the encumbrance dated 29.11.2018 registered as Doc.No.07/2018 in respect of 64 cents of land comprised in UDR S.No.104/1 (Old S.No.220) of Kalikappan bit II Village, Madurai North Taluk, Teppakulam Sub Registration District, Madurai District and further direct the third respondent to cancel the entry in the encumbrance dated 15.12.2018 registered as Document No.60 of 2018 in respect of house property in D.No. 137-A/4 in T.S.No.229/2, Iravathanallur Revenue Village, Madurai and in respect of house property in D.No.2A/1, T.S.No.2391/2, Iravathanallur Revenue Village, Madurai.) This matter is listed today under the caption “for Maintainability”. 2. The Office note, dated 09.08.2019 in W.P(MD)SR.No.51199 of 2019 has been perused and the learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard. 3. In the present case, an Arbitrator has been appointed by the parties, namely, the respondents 4,5,6 and 7. Before the Arbitrator, it seems that, an arbitration application for an interim relief in application No.29 of 2017 was moved in Arbitration Case No.19 of 2017 and the Arbitrator, by order dated 23.04.2018, passed an interim order of interim attachment of the property mentioned in the schedule therein. In this context, it is the case of the petitioner that, it is the Bank and it is having the charge over the property mentioned in the schedule therein and without naming or impleading the Bank i.e., the petitioner herein, in the said arbitration proceedings, since the said interim order was passed by the learned Arbitrator, invoking Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, aggrieved over the said interim order passed by the Arbitrator, according to the petitioner, as no other alternative efficacious remedy is available, assailing the said order, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. 4. In support of the said case, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, no doubt, as against the interim order passed by the Arbitrator, under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, an appeal can be filed before the appropriate appellate forum invoking Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. However, in the present case, the petitioner is not at all a party before the Arbitrator. Therefore, as the third party, such an appeal cannot be filed by the petitioner before the appellate forum invoking Section 37 of the said Act and therefore, the petitioner does not have any alternative remedy. Hence, he has no other option except to come before this Court by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this writ petition can very well be entertained by this Court, he submitted. 5. I have gone through the office note, the relevant provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and also, the materials placed before this Court by way of typed set of papers filed by the petitioner and have considered the said submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act provides for passing interim order by way of interim arrangement during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings by the arbitral tribunal and Section 17(2) in this context reads thus:- “17. Interim measures ordered by arbitral tribunal.- .......... (2). Subject to any orders passed in an appeal under Section 37, any order issued by the arbitral tribunal under this Section shall be deemed to be an order of the Court for all purposes and shall be enforceable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) in the same manner as if it were an order of the Court. 7. Therefore, the order passed under Section 17(1) shall be deemed to be an order of the Court for all purposes and shall be enforceable under the Code of Civil Procedure subject to the appeal to be filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 8. 7. Therefore, the order passed under Section 17(1) shall be deemed to be an order of the Court for all purposes and shall be enforceable under the Code of Civil Procedure subject to the appeal to be filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 8. In this context, Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act reads thus:- “(1) An appeal shall lie from the following orders (and from no others) to the Court authorised by law to hear appeals from original decrees of the Court passing the order, namely:- [(a) refusing to refer the parties to arbitration under Section 8; (b) granting or refusing to grant any measure under Section 9; (c) setting aside or refusing to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34.] (2) An appeal shall also lie to a Court from an order of the arbitral tribunal- (a) accepting the plea referred to in sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of section 16; or (b) granting or refusing to grant an interim measure under Section 17. (3) No second appeal shall lie from an order passed in appeal under this section, but nothing in this section shall affect or take away any right to appeal to the Supreme Court.” 9. Under Section 37 sub Section 2(b), it is specifically mentioned that, any order granting/refusing to grant an interim measure under Section 17 is also an appealable order within the meaning of Section 37. 10. Under Section 37(1), the Sub Section starts with the word “an appeal shall lie”, which means, appeal would lie before the appellate forum under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act against the orders passed by the arbitral tribunal or the Court of original jurisdiction under various provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and in this context, an order passed by the arbitral tribunal invoking Section 17 of the Act either granting/refusing to grant an interim measure is also an appealable order. 11. 11. It does not restrict that, the parties to the proceedings before the Arbitrator alone shall be entitled to invoke Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to file an appeal, since the words “an appeal shall lie from the following orders”, makes very clear that, whatever order passed, as has been enumerated under Section 37 (1) and (2), appeal certainly would lie against the said order before the appellate forum, where such appellate remedy can very well be sought for by any aggrieved party, who may not be a party before the arbitral tribunal. 12. Therefore, here, in the case on hand, if at all, the petitioner is aggrieved over the order passed by the Arbitrator on 23.04.2018 in application No.29 of 2017, where the petitioner is not a party, he can very well invoke Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and file an appeal under Section 37 (2)(b), as set out above and in this context, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, no appeal would lie under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, since the petitioner is not a party to the arbitration proceedings, cannot be accepted and it is liable to be rejected. 13. In that view of the matter, since the petitioner is having an alternative effective statutory appellate remedy, as set out above, he cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the objection raised by the office through the office note, as referred to above, is sustainable. Hence, the Registry is directed to return the case papers to the learned counsel for the petitioner, after getting due acknowledgement. Accordingly, the maintainability issue is answered.