( 1 ) HEARD Sri D. V. Sitaram Murthy, Counsel representing the Revision Petitioner and sri I. R. Joshi, Counsel representing Sri Vijay sen Reddy, Counsel representing the respondent.

( 2 ) THIS Revision is preferred as against an order made in E. A. No. 65/2002 in o. E. P. No. 26/2001 in A. T. No. 10/2000-01 made by the Senior Civil Judge, Puttur on 2-7-2003. The said E. A. No. 65/2002 was filed on the ground that the Senior Civil judge, Puttur, has no jurisdiction to entertain the E. P. at all. As I can see from the impugned order, several other aspects also had been discussed and when once the question of jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the E. P. is decided, I am of the considered view that the other questions which had been discussed in the impugned order would fall into total insignificance.

( 3 ) SRI D. V. Sitaram Murthy, the learned counsel representing the Revision Petitioner had drawn the attention of this Court to section 2 (1) (e) of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996, hereinafter in short referred to as "act" and had contended that court means the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a District and at any stretch of imaginati