JUDGMENT : P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, J. (Prayer: This Original Side Appeal has been filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, R/W Order XXXVI Rule 1 of Original Side Rules R/W Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to set aside the common order dated 19.02.2021 passed in A.No. 2604 of 2020 by the Learned Judge of this Court and allow this Original Side Appeal. This Original Side Appeal has been filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, R/W Order XXXVI Rule 1 of Original Side Rules R/W Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to set aside the common order dated 19.02.2021 passed in O.A.No. 566 of 2020 by the Learned Judge of this Court and allow this Original Side Appeal.) 1. Heard Mr. P.Wilson, Learned Senior Counsel for Mr. Richardson Wilson, Learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Sudharsana Sundar, Learned Standing Counsel, who takes notice for the Respondent, and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties. 2. The Respondent has been established by the Government of Tamil Nadu as an undertaking to develop industrial growth in the State and in furtherance thereto, it had acquired lands for allotting the same to various entrepreneurs in industry. The land measuring an extent of 2.74 acres in Plot No. K-53(2) at SIPCOT Apparel Park, Irungattukottai, Sriperumbudur - 602117 had been allotted by the Respondent to the Appellant by Order No. P&SP/AP/IRU/GA/2007 dated 24.04.2007 for the manufacture of readymade garments and on receipt of cost, Lease Deed dated 13.09.2007 has been executed, which has been registered as Document No. 20316 of 2007 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Sriperumbudur. The terms of that Lease Deed for the said allotment requires that the allottee must commence construction of building within 6 months and complete the same within 24 months from the date of allotment and that commercial production / trial production shall have to be commenced within 30 months from the date of allotment, failing which the allotment could be cancelled and the amount paid forfeited. According to the Respondent, the Appellant had not satisfied those mandatory requirements and the explanation submitted for the show cause notice issued in that regard was not satisfactory. According to the Respondent, the Appellant had not satisfied those mandatory requirements and the explanation submitted for the show cause notice issued in that regard was not satisfactory. It was then proceeded by the Respondent in the Order No. P-III/AP/IRU/Gee 2/2007 dated 26.09.2020 to cancel the allotment of the plot made to the Appellant, who was required to execute surrender deed within 15 days from the date of receipt of that order, failing which resumption of plot was to be made under Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1975. The Appellant by letter dated 10.10.2020 invoked clause 35 of the Lease Deed dated 13.09.2007 between the parties and sought for appointment of an arbitrator to resolve the disputes that has arisen between them. As no arbitrator had been appointed by the Respondent, an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, was made by the Appellant for the same in O.P. No. 598 of 2020 before the Original Side of this Court. The Appellant had further made applications in O.A. No. 566 of 2020 and A.No. 2604 of 2020 under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in the Original Side of this Court for restraining the Respondent from leasing out the property to third parties pending arbitral proceedings and to stay the letter dated 26.09.2020 issued by the Respondent respectively. The Learned Judge, who reserved orders in the applications in O.A. No. 566 of 2020 and A.No. 2604 of 2020 on 17.12.2020, pronounced the common order on 19.02.2021 refusing the interim reliefs to the Appellant, which is assailed in these appeals. 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant contends that interim reliefs sought in the applications had been declined solely by referring to the observations made in the report of the Advocate Commissioner, who had been appointed to inspect the property, without taking into account the evidence available to prove the contrary. It is further brought to notice that by another order dated 11.01.2021 in O.P. No. 598 of 2020, the Court has appointed Thiru. N.L.Rajah, Senior Counsel as arbitrator, to enter upon reference and adjudicate the disputes inter se the parties in which the proceedings have already commenced and the Appellant has also made an application under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the Learned Arbitrator seeking interim relief. 4. N.L.Rajah, Senior Counsel as arbitrator, to enter upon reference and adjudicate the disputes inter se the parties in which the proceedings have already commenced and the Appellant has also made an application under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the Learned Arbitrator seeking interim relief. 4. Having regard to the fact that an arbitrator has been appointed to adjudicate upon the disputes that have arisen between the parties and the Appellant has also made application for interim relief before him, this Court is of the considered view that it would be expedient in the interests of justice that all aspects of the matter are relegated for determination afresh by the Learned Arbitrator instead delving into the disputed questions of fact in these appeals and thereby avoid multiplicity of proceedings. In other words, it would suffice to clarify here that the Appellant is not precluded from placing materials before the Learned Arbitrator to controvert the observations made in the report of the Advocate Commissioner, if it is relied by the Respondent, and that the Learned Arbitrator while passing any interim order or final award, as he may deem fit, shall take into consideration the entire evidence lead by both parties, uninhibited and uninfluenced by the conclusions arrived by the Court in the common order, which is impugned in these appeals. 5. In the result, the Original Side Appeals are disposed on the aforesaid terms. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.