( 1 ) THE revision petitioner assails the order dated 30-10-2002 passed by the learned senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda, in e. P. No. 60 of 2002.

( 2 ) THE revision petitioner sought to file the said Execution Petition before the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda, as against the respondents herein who are the judgment-Debtors. The factual matrix reveals that the petitioner and the respondents by means of an arbitral agreement referred the matter to the arbitrators for resolution of the dispute, who eventually passed an award. It appears that having been felt aggrieved, the first respondent herein filed an application to set aside the award, which is now pending adjudication before the District Court at nalgonda. In the meanwhile, the decreeholder as stated hereinabove sought to execute the award as if it were a decree of the Civil Court by filing E. P. No. 60 of 2002 under Section 36 of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 ( the Act for brevity) before the Senior Civil Judge at miryalaguda. Under the impugned order, the learned Judge returned the Execution petition for being presented before an appropriate Court on the premise that, that court has no jurisdiction to entertain the execution Petition inasmuch as neither the judgment-Debtor resides within the jurisdictional limits of that Court nor the award has been passed within the jurisdiction of that Court nor does the cause of action arise within the jurisdictional limits of that Court. The Decreeholder having been of the view that the Court of Senior Civil judge at Miryalaguda alone has the jurisdiction assails that order in this revision petition.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner seeks to contend that inasmuch the subject matter of arbitration is laying of road work at Miryalaguda, a part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of Senior civil Judge at Miryalaguda; and that having regard to the Section 20 of the Code of Civil procedure (for brevity c. P. C. ), that Court has jurisdiction to entertain the execution petition.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, on the other hand, contends that the expression "the Principal civil Court of original jurisdiction" means only the District Court and nothing else.

( 5 ) HAVING regard to the rival contentions, the short point that falls for my determination in this Revision Petition is as to which is the appropriate Court to enforce the award passed by the Arbitrators?

( 6 ) THE factual matrix discloses that the revision petitioner is the Decreeholder in whose favour the award, which is now sought to be executed, was passed qua the respondents 1 and 2 herein-the Judgment debtors. The dispute inter se between the parties is in respect of laying of a road at miryalaguda, which is within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of Senior Civil judge at Miryalaguda. By means of an arbitral agreement, both the parties referred the dispute to the Arbitrators who are the residents of Hyderabad. The revision petitioner is a resident of Miryalaguda whereas the respondents 1 and 2 herein are residents of Hyderabad and Nalgonda respectively. The Arbitrators eventually passed the award on 18-9-2001 at hyderabad. With these available facts, the question of jurisdiction to enforce the award has to be decided. It is appropriate here in the context to look into certain of the provisions of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 for brevity and better understanding of the matter. Section 36 of the Act is the provision, which enables the parties to enforce the award and it reads as under:"36. Enforcement: Where the time for making an application to set aside the arbitral award under Section 34 has expired, or such application having been made, it has been refused, the award shall be enforced under the code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) in the same manner as if it were a decree of the Court. "[emphasis is mine]