JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. The above Appeal is filed challenging the order dtd. 30/6/2022 passed in A.A. No.5/2022 by the VII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The Respondent being the owner of 3 acres 16 guntas of land situated in Whitefield village, Krishnarajapuram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru entered into an Agreement of Sale dtd. 31/12/2018 with the Appellant for sale of the said land. On the failure of the Respondent to acquire a minimum extent of land as per the agreement of the sale, the Appellant filed a Suit in O.S. No.900/2020 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, 3 Bengaluru Rural District for specific performance of the said Agreement of Sale. During the pendency of the suit, the parties entered into a compromise on 5/4/2021 agreeing to various terms stated in the said compromise. Subsequent to the said compromise, parties executed a Joint Development/ Sharing Agreement, Agreement of Sale and irrevocable general power of attorney on 7/4/2021. The suit was decreed in terms of the compromise on 20/4/2022. 3. Subsequent to same, it is alleged that various agreements were entered into by each of the parties. One of the parties in favour of whom an Agreement was executed, filed a Suit in O.S. No.382/2022 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, wherein both the parties herein have been arrayed as defendants in the said Suit and the Respondent initiated A.A.No.5/2022 under Sec. 9(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act') for various interim reliefs before the District Court. 4. The District Court vide order dtd. 21/4/2022, granted an ex-parte ad-interim order of temporary injunction, restraining the Appellant from selling, alienating, disposing, transferring or encumbering or creating any 3rd party rights in respect of the said properties. The Appellant entered appearance in A.A.No.5/2022 and filed its objection and contested the case. After hearing both the parties, the District Court by its order dtd. 30/6/2022, restrained the Appellant from alienating, disposing, transferring or encumbering the schedule properties till disposal of the Arbitration Proceedings between the parties. The Respondent was also ordered not to alienate the schedule properties till disposal of the Arbitration Proceedings. Being aggrieved by the same, the present Appeal is filed. 5. 30/6/2022, restrained the Appellant from alienating, disposing, transferring or encumbering the schedule properties till disposal of the Arbitration Proceedings between the parties. The Respondent was also ordered not to alienate the schedule properties till disposal of the Arbitration Proceedings. Being aggrieved by the same, the present Appeal is filed. 5. The learned counsel for the Appellant vehemently contended that there was no manifest intention of the Respondent to arbitrate and hence, the District Court ought not to have granted the relief as sought for in a Petition filed under Sec. 9 of the Act. That, pursuant to the compromise between the parties, 3rd party rights have been created. In the circumstances, an application for injunction in terms of what has been sought by the Respondent ought not be granted. It is further contended that the Arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties stipulates that only if the parties failed to resolve the dispute with mutual negotiation and conciliation within a period of 30 days, then the matter is required to be referred to Arbitration. In view of the same, the Respondent is not entitled the reliefs as sought for in the application filed under Sec. 9 of the Act. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent contended that the District Court after considering all the factual aspects of the matter has rightly restrained the Appellant from selling, alienating, disposing, transferring or encumbering the schedule properties till the disposal of the Arbitration Proceedings. The District Court, in order to balance the equities has also ordered that the Respondent shall also not alienate the schedule properties till the disposal of the Arbitration Proceedings. 7. Having regard to the contention put forth by both the parties, question for consideration is 'whether order dtd. 30/6/2022 passed by the District Court in A.A. No.5/2022 is liable to be interfered with?' 8. It is settled law as rightly noticed by the District Court while invoking Sec. 9 of the Act seeking for injunctive relief the principles contained Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC will apply [See: Adhunik Steels Ltd V/s Orissa Manganese and Minerals (P) Ltd., (2007) 7 SCC 125 ]. 9. It is settled law as rightly noticed by the District Court while invoking Sec. 9 of the Act seeking for injunctive relief the principles contained Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC will apply [See: Adhunik Steels Ltd V/s Orissa Manganese and Minerals (P) Ltd., (2007) 7 SCC 125 ]. 9. Having regard to the scope of an application under Sec. 9 of the Act, the District Court has appreciated the case put forth by the respective parties for the purpose of assessing the prima-facie case, the balance of convenience and irreparable injury. The District Court while considering whether prima-facie case was made out, has noticed that both the parties were required to perform certain obligations under the agreement within a specified time. On the contrary, both the parties have made allegations and counter allegations blaming each other and as a result of which, 3rd parties in favour of whom alienations are made by the respective parties will be the sufferers. Thus, the District Court has rightly held that the Respondent had made out a prima-facie case. 10. Further, while considering the aspect of balance of convenience, undisputedly, Respondent being the absolute owner of the properties and the Appellant claiming under the Joint Development Agreement, is a right as that of licensee and rights over 40% of the developed area starts when the properties are developed as per the agreement between the parties. Having noticed that Respondent has executed the sale deeds in favour of a 3rd party, the District Court has held the balance of convenience lies in favour of the Respondent. After appreciation of the entire material on record, the District Court has recorded a categorical finding that if the order of injunction was not granted, the Respondent will be put to irreparable loss and injury. 11. The contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant that having regard to the existence of a stipulation for conciliation in the dispute resolution clause, the Respondent ought not to have filed an application under Sec. 9 of the Act without attempting to resolve the dispute through the conciliation is untenable. The said aspect of the matter has also been considered by the District Court and rightly rejected. The said aspect of the matter has also been considered by the District Court and rightly rejected. In any event, the stipulation for parties to attempt conciliation in order to resolve the dispute will not preclude a party from initiating the proceedings under Sec. 9 of the Act, as the same can be done even before commencement of Arbitration Proceeding. In the circumstance, the said contention put forth by the Appellant is liable to be rejected. 12. The other contention of the Appellant that 3rd party rights have already been created and hence, the interim relief as sought for by the Respondent ought not to have been granted. The said contention has also been appreciated by the District Court and rightly rejected. In any event, the 3rd party rights which have already been created would not be affected by virtue of an order under Sec. 9 of the Act. 13. The interim protection as contemplated under Sec. 9 of the Act is invoked so as to ensure that the properties in the dispute is preserved till the disputes between the parties are resolved in the manner known to law. The disputes between the parties are required to be resolved as contemplated by the Agreement entered into between them. Till such time, the District Court has rightly not only restrained the Appellant but also restrained the Respondent in order to ensure that the subject matter of the dispute in question is preserved till the disputes between the parties are resolved by the arbitration. 14. An order under Sec. 9 of the Act being a discretionary one and the District Court having correctly appreciated the factual aspect of the matter based on the documents produced before it, has rightly exercised its discretion in passing the order dtd. 30/6/2022 which is impugned in this appeal. 15. It is settled law that the Appellate Court ought not to interfere in a discretionary order passed by the trial Court unless the discretion exercised shown to have been done arbitraly, capriciously or perversely or where the Court has ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions as long as the discretion has been exercised by the Trial Court reasonable and in a judicial manner, interference with the same is not warranted. [See. (1) Mohd. Mehtab Khan and others V. Khushnuma Ibrahim Khan and others, (2013) 9 SCC 221 . [See. (1) Mohd. Mehtab Khan and others V. Khushnuma Ibrahim Khan and others, (2013) 9 SCC 221 . (2) Lakshminarasimhiah and others Vs. Yalakki Gowda, 1965(1) MysLJ 370. 16. Having regard to the propositions of law as noticed hereinabove we are of the considered opinion that the District Court has rightly appreciated the factual contentions put forth by both the parties, the material on record and after considering the totality of the circumstances has exercised its discretion in granting the order of injunction. The Appellant has not made out any case to warrant interference of the same in the present appeal. Accordingly, the above appeal fails and it is dismissed. No costs.