( 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 imagination, it cannot be said that the Senior Civil Judge, Puttur is the principal court of original jurisdiction of the District and hence the E. P. should not have been entertained by the said Court. The learned counsel placed strong reliance on Ankati satyamaiah v. Sallangula Lalaiah in this regard.

( 4 ) PER contra, Sri I. R. Joshi, the learned counsel representing the respondent submitted that the merits and demerits relating to the. award made also had been discussed in the impugned order apart form the question of executability by the learned senior Civil Judge at Puttur. The counsel also submitted that the conditional order made by this Court also had not been complied with and the Revision Petitioner is driving the respondent from pillar to post and it would be very difficult if the interest of the respondent is not safeguarded in the meanwhile. The learned counsel also contended that in view of the pecuniary limitations which differ from one State to another, on advice, the respondent had filed the E. P. before the Senior Civil Judge, Puttur and in such circumstances, there is no legal bar to order transfer of the said E. P. to the file of the District Court, Chittoor, which is the principal Court of original jurisdiction of the district instead of allowing the C. R. P. , the consequence of which would be dismissal of the E. P. The learned counsel also submitted that even otherwise, in the meanwhile, at least the interest of the respondent may be protected, if not the respondent will not be able to realize any amount.

( 5 ) HEARD both the counsel. On a careful perusal of the impugned order, not only the question of jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the E. P. , but certain other questions also had been decided which may not be germane for the present purpose. The question in controversy now to be decided is whether the Senior Civil Judge, puttur is empowered under law to entertain the E. P. or not.

( 6 ) SECTION 2 of the Act deals with definitions and Section 2 (1) (e) defines "court" as:"in this part, unless the context otherwise requires, "court" means the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a District and includes the high Court in exercise of its ordinary civil jurisdiction, having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject matter of the arbitration if the same had been the subject matter of a suit, but does not include any Civil court of a grade inferior to such principal Civil Court or any Court of small Causes". There cannot be any doubt or controversy that definitely the Senior Civil Judge, Puttur is not the principal Court of original jurisdiction of the District within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (e) of the Act. In the decision referred supra, while dealing with a simiiar question, this Court held at para