In the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act’) in A.S.No.19/2015 in the Court of the Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, the plaintiff - appellant made an application (I.A.No.4) with the submissions that the issue relating to
admissibility of the agreement in question be taken up as a preliminary point of hearing. However, on 05.01.2018, the learned District Judge proceeded
with the hearing and heard the arguments of learned counsel for the defendant No.1 on I.A.No.4 as also on the main matter; and learned counsel for
the plaintiff â€" appellant was directed to file written arguments on the main matter by 10.01.2018 and to address oral arguments. Seeking to question
the aforesaid proceedings dated 05.01.2018, the appellant sought intervention in the writ proceedings. However, the writ petition so filed by the
appellant has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court by a short order dated 05.03.2018 that reads as under:
“1. In view of the fact that Section 34 proceedings are pending before the competent Court against the Arbitral award, the present writ petition is
held to be not maintainable and the same is accordingly dismissed.
2. Whatever objections of the petitioner available to him under Section 34 of the Act may be raised before that Court.â€
 Learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously argued that the agreement for sale dated 23.05.2008 was not properly stamped and, therefore,
unless and until the duty and penalty were paid, the same could not have been acted upon.
 Learned counsel has referred to and relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SMS TEA ESTATES PRIVATE
LIMITED VS. CHANDMARI TEA COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED: (2011) 14 SCC 66. Learned counsel would submit that the issue regarding
admissibility of the document goes to the root of the matter and ought to have been considered as a preliminary issue; and hence, the learned Single
Judge has erred in declining to interfere.
 Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the material placed on record with reference to the law applicable, we are
clearly of the view that the writ petition as also this appeal could only be considered as a baseless attempt on the part of the appellant to some how
avoid expeditious disposal of the application under Section 34 of the Act.
 It remains trite that the proceedings under Section 34 of the Act are not in the nature of any appeal against the award; but therein, the award in
question could be challenged on the limited grounds as permissible. It is difficult to accede to the submissions that even such proceedings under
Section 34 of the Act could also be taken up in split-stages so as to examine any particular ground as a preliminary one.
 The decision in the case of SMS TEA ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED (supra) relating to the issues concerning unstamped and unregistered
instrument does not make out a case that if any such question is raised in the proceedings under Section 34 of the Act, the same is required to be
determined as a preliminary issue. Needless to observe that all other aspects, including the objections of the appellant, remain open to be raised at the
time of hearing of the application.
 In our view, the subordinate Court has rightly adopted the procedure of hearing the entire matter together with the application/memo (I.A.No.4)
moved by the appellant. Any challenge to such a procedure by way of a writ petition could have only been rejected at its threshold. The learned Single
Judge has rightly done so.
 Ordinarily, while dismissing the appeal at the admission stage, we may not saddle the appellant with costs but, in the present matter, where we find
that the appellant has only been attempting to delay the disposal of the proceedings under Section 34 of the Act, this intra-Court appeal deserves to be
dismissed with costs.
 Upon this Court having expressed reservations to entertain this baseless appeal, learned counsel for the appellant had sought permission to
withdraw.
 Having regard to the circumstances, particularly when the appeal has been argued at length and we find the attempt on the part of the appellant
wholly baseless and unjustified, the prayer for withdrawal is declined.
 Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed with costs quantified at `5,000/- (Rupees five thousand), to be deposited in the Advocates’ Benevolent
Fund, Bengaluru.
 The pending interlocutory application also stands disposed of.
