As per case facts, parties entered into an Agreement to Sell for a commercial property. Petitioner paid a substantial amount, but Respondent allegedly failed to deliver vacant possession and attempted ... to create third-party rights, breaching the agreement. Petitioner filed a Section 9 Petition for status quo and invoked arbitration, but received no response. Petitioner then filed a Section 11 Petition in the Delhi High Court seeking an arbitrator's appointment. Respondent opposed, citing limitation, non-compliance with pre-arbitral steps, unenforceability of the agreement, and an optional arbitration clause. The question arose whether these preliminary objections should be decided by the court or the arbitrator under Section 11. Finally, the Court, affirming its limited Section 11 scope, ruled that issues like limitation, pre-arbitral compliance (deemed directory given adversarial conduct), and agreement enforceability are factual and fall within the arbitrator's purview under Section 16. An arbitrator was appointed, and the Section 9 Petition was converted to a Section 17 application, maintaining the status quo.