C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J.

( 1 ) THIS petition is filed seeking transfer of OP. No. 1743 of 2000 from the file of the Court of the Principal District judge, Visakhapatnam, to the file of any other Additional District Judge, in the same district, on the ground that the pendency in the District Court is heavy and since the matter which arises out of an order under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Act ), requires expeditious disposal. The petitioner in fact moved the District Court, Visakhapatnam, in ia. No. 819/2001 in OP. No. 1743/2000 with the above prayer, but the same was dismissed by the learned District Judge, on the ground that under the provisions of the Act, he alone, but not an Additional District Judge, has jurisdiction to entertain the main op. No. 1743 of 2000.

( 2 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner relying on S. Srinivas Rao v. High Court of a. P. , 1988 (2) ALT 586 and New Jaji Labour society v. Haji Abdul Rahaman Sahab, 1992 (1) An. WR 220, contended that the assumption of the learned judge that he is persona designata under the Act and so he cannot make over the proceedings to courts of coordinate jurisdiction is erroneous. The contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents is that since the District court dismissed transfer petition and that order of dismissal is not challenged the said order became final and, so, this petition is not maintainable. His next contention is that Section 2 (e) of the Act contemplates the matters arising under the Act being decided by the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in the district only and so the case has to be decided only by the principal District Judge but not by any additional District Judge.

( 3 ) SECTION 34 of the act, lays down that an application for setting aside the aribitral award has to be made to a court. court is defined in Section 2 (e) of the Act as under:"court means the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district, and inlcudes the High Court in exercise of its oridinary original 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. "a combined reading Sections 34 and section 2 (e) of the Act shows that procedings for setting aside an arbitral award have to be initiated or instituted only in the Principal civil Court of original jurisdiction having jurisdiction to decide the subject matter of arbitration, but no other Court. The jurisdiction of the "court" has to be decided as per the Provisions of C. P. C. and the A. P. Civil Courts Act. The only embargo laid down in Section 2 (e) of the Act is that a civil Court inferior to the Principal Civil court, or any Court of Small Causes, cannot exercise jurisdiction to decide the matters arising under the Act. When a proceeding of any type is instituted in a Civil Court, that proceeding will be governed by the provisions of the A. P. Civil Courts Act. In this case the Principal Court of Civil jurisdiction is the District Court. Section 11 of the Civil Courts Act lays down that an additional District Judge can exercise the powers of a District Judge, and also has power to perform all or any of the functions of the District Judge. Therefore, it is clear that an additional District Judge also is a district Judge as has all the powers of the district Judge, while dealing with the matters made over, or assigned to him, by the District judge.

( 4 ) IN Srinivas Rao s case (supra), relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the question before the Division bench was whether the Chief Judge of Small causes Court has power to transfer the appeals filed before him under Section 20 of the Rent Control Act to the Additional Chief judge, City Small Causes Court. The division Bench, after reviewing the law on the subject and the distinc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document