ORDER : Heard. By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following reliefs: - a) Directing the respondent to release running payments. b) Directing the respondent to hand over clear and hindrance free site for execution of the work. c) Further restraining the respondent from initiating any action under clause 2&3, whereby imposing compensation and damages and also restraining the respondent from making recovery by forfeiting security, security deposits and from the pending payments under Agreement No. 160/2018-19 for the work (Providing L.I.S Horticulture Land from Changawati Khad to G.P. Kalbog Nagan and Ram Nagar) of the petitioner with the state of Himachal Pradesh till the determination of right and liabilities of the arbitration proceedings pertaining to No.160/2018 for the work.” 2. On 21st April, 2022 the following order was passed in the instant petition:- “On 07.04.2022, this Court passed the following orders :- Learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record instructions dated 6.4.2022. Let the petitioner provide clear roadmap with regard to the time schedule in which it would complete work in question as the same is already overdue. In the meanwhile, respondents are directed to process 10th running bill submitted by the contractor. List on 21.4.2022. In the meanwhile, petitioner is given liberty to submit the sites where it is facing certain hindrances/difficulties in the execution of the work to this Court as well as to the concerned authorities.” In compliance to the aforesaid orders, the petitioner contractor has filed a supplementary affidavit setting out therein certain hindrances/difficulties being faced by him in the execution of the work in question. The State has responded to this affidavit by placing on record the instructions dated 21.04.2022. I have gone through the affidavit filed by the petitioner as also the response of the State. I really feel that none of the so-called hindrances is of such magnitude that would prevent the execution of the work in any way and insofar as the little hindrances are concerned, the same can be resolved on the spot. Shri B.B. Gupta, Executive Engineer, Jal Shakti Vibhag, Jubbal, is present in person and assures this Court that as and when the petitioner would point out the hindrances, the same shall be redressed promptly by the respondents since the petitioner undertakes to complete the work preferably within three months from today. Shri B.B. Gupta, Executive Engineer, Jal Shakti Vibhag, Jubbal, is present in person and assures this Court that as and when the petitioner would point out the hindrances, the same shall be redressed promptly by the respondents since the petitioner undertakes to complete the work preferably within three months from today. Taking into account the nature of the work and further the fact that the monsoon would be approaching in the month of July, I deem it proper to direct the petitioner contractor to complete the work in its entirety by 15th July, 2022 and file a comprehensive compliance report on or before the next date of hearing. List on 21.07.2022. In the meanwhile, it is expected that payment of 10th running bill of the petitioner-contractor which has already been processed by the Department shall be released to the petitioner-contractor within a period of two weeks from today i.e. on or before 06.05.2022, that of course, is subject to the petitioner starting the work at the war-footing.” 3. The petitioner was directed by aforesaid order to complete the work in its entirety by 15th July, 2022 and file a comprehensive compliance report on or before 21.07.2022. However, two applications came to be filed before 21.07.2022. The first being OMP No. 450 of 2022 was filed on behalf of the petitioner and second being OMP No. 453 of 2022 filed on behalf of the respondent through Superintending Engineer, Jal Shakti Vibhag, Circle Rohru. Petitioner submitted his own reasons for not being able to complete the work in compliance to order dated 21.04.2022, the respondents alleged the non-compliance of order dated 21.04.2022 for reasons attributable solely to the petitioner. As per the petitioner, he had made all endeavour to complete the work on or before 15.07.2022, but it was on account of defaults of respondent that the work could not be completed. In nutshell, there were allegations and counter-allegations which raised serious triable question of facts. 4. Record further reveals that the payment of 10th running bill was released to the petitioner by respondent on 22.06.2022. Despite such release of amount, petitioner had not completed the work as per directions issued by this Court. It was specifically alleged by respondent that on 21.04.2022, work worth 2.06 Crore remained to be completed by petitioner. 4. Record further reveals that the payment of 10th running bill was released to the petitioner by respondent on 22.06.2022. Despite such release of amount, petitioner had not completed the work as per directions issued by this Court. It was specifically alleged by respondent that on 21.04.2022, work worth 2.06 Crore remained to be completed by petitioner. The direction of this Court was to complete the entire work by 15.07.2022, but the petitioner had competed only 20% of the balance work. 5. The aforesaid facts have been noticed in order to assess the bonafides of petitioner in filing the instant petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The provision of Section 9 of the Ibid has a restrictive scope which cannot be extended to decide the triable issues between the parties. The object and purpose of aforesaid provision is to protect the interest of parties for limited period, as also for limited purpose. 6. The instant petition was filed by the petitioner in March, 2022 and by that time about one year had elapsed since the expiry of date of completion of work as per the contract. In order to protect the interest of both the parties and also the public interest, this Court had passed order dated 21.04.2022. The order remained unimplemented and even till date the work has not been completed. On this score alone, petitioner cannot be held entitled to any relief as prayed. The purpose of filing of the instant petition appears to be extracting the payments, otherwise withheld by the respondent. To some extent petitioner succeeded, as he got the payment of 10th running bill on 22.06.2022. 7. Even otherwise, keeping in view the provision of Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs claimed in the petition. The Court is empowered to pass only interim orders under Section 9 of the Act that too in terms of the provisions made thereunder. It does not provide for any power with the Court to direct the release of payments, handover the hindrance sides and also to stop or prohibit the other side from exercising its powers under the contract. All such reliefs will require adjudication on question of facts, unless admitted by other side. Indubitably, in the instant case such was not the situation. All such reliefs will require adjudication on question of facts, unless admitted by other side. Indubitably, in the instant case such was not the situation. Petitioner had alleged in its petition various acts of omission and commission on the part of the respondent. Such allegations were contested by the respondents. Even after passing of order dated 21.04.2022, instead of resolution of the disputed questions, those became more serious and intricate. 8. Though, under sub-clause (e) of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Act, the Court has been empowered to order such interim measure of protection, as may appear to it to be just and convenient, but in the facts and circumstances of the case, as detailed above, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for exercising power under said provision. 9. Viewed from another angle, the order dated 21.04.2022 passed by this Court was an interim order for all intents and purposes and the case was adjourned further only for the purpose of seeking compliance. Sub-Section (2) of Section 9 of the Act mandates that where a Court passes an order for any interim measure of protection under subsection (1), the arbitral proceedings shall be commenced within a period of 90 days from the date of such order or within such further time, as the Court may determine. As per sub-section (3) of Section 9, once the arbitral tribunal has been constituted, the Court shall not entertain an application under sub- section (1), unless the Court finds that circumstances exists which may not render the remedy provided under Section 17 efficacious. During the hearing of the case, this Court has been informed that the arbitral proceedings have not commenced as yet. It was submitted that the proceedings for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act are in progress. More than 90 days have been elapsed after the passing of order dated 21.04.2022. In absence of the commencement of arbitral proceedings within the time stipulated under sub-section (2) of Section 9, the Court will cease to have jurisdiction to pass further orders. 10. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed leaving the petitioner with liberty to raise all available pleas and grounds before the arbitral tribunal on its on situation. 10. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed leaving the petitioner with liberty to raise all available pleas and grounds before the arbitral tribunal on its on situation. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed, so also pending application(s), if any.