The Court having jurisdiction to pass a decree in terms of an award is the Court which would have jurisdiction to entertain a suit on the same subject-matter.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition seeking a revision of the order of the District Munsif, Vijayawada, in O. S. 793 of 1955 which is a proceeding for passing a decree in terms of the award filed under Section 14 (2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940. It is seen that under Rule 5 of the rules framed under the Arbitration Act of 1940, applications under Section 14 of the Act shall be numbered and registered as suits and that explains the order under revision having been passed in O. S. 793 of 1955.

( 2 ) THE learned Munsif rejected the application in the view that that Court has no jurisdiction to pass a decree in terms of the award. The other points, which fell for determination in the proceeding, were deemed unnecessary in view of the said finding.

( 3 ) THE question that arises in this revision petition is whether the view taken by the learned Munsif that the Vijayawada Court has no jurisdiction is correct. Sri Parthasarathi for the petitioner has contended that the learned Munsif failed to evercise the jurisdiction vested in the Munsif.

( 4 ) THE facts relevant to this question about which there is no dispute are these: Chandra Narasimham, the petitioner herein, contracted to sell 75 bales of gunnies, the quantity stipulated being 30,000 gunnies, to Rani-dayal Rameswarlal of Tadepalligudem for a certain price under a written contract dated 21-3-1947 entered into between the parties at Vijayawada. The quantity stipulated was to be delivered in three monthly instalments of 25 bales each in April, May and June. The seller should inform the buyer of the proposed delivery on or before the 25th of each month. It would appear also that if disputes arose, they were referable to the arbitration of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce which should give ifs award. It was also agreed that the award could be filed in the High Court of Calcutta and made a decree of that Court. It is now not in dispute that the buyer defaulted and the dispute was referred to the Bengal Chamber of Commerce for arbitration as agreed to by the parties and that an award was passed by the said Chamber of Commerce. As was agreed to by the parties the award was filed before the High Court of Calcutta and the said High Court set aside that award on the sole ground that the award was void as the Registrar of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce had no power or authority to constitute the Court which made the award, by an order dated 4-5-1951 in suit No. 142 of 1952 on the file of the original side of the High Court of Calcutta. Subsequently award No. 1335/54 was passed by the Bengal Chamber of Commerce on 14-12-1954, Ex. A. I. The petitioner has filed that award in the present proceeding before the Court of the District Munsif, Vijayawada, to obtain a decree in terms of that award.

( 5 ) THE respondent raised various pleas against the granting of the application, one of tine pleas being that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application and that the only Court which had jurisdiction by the agreement of parties was the High Court at Calcutta. It was also pleaded that the application was barred by limitation.

( 6 ) THE learned District Munsif framed issues as under with regard to the points at which the parties were at variance:-- 1. Whether the arbitration proceedings covered by the award case No. 1335 of 1954 are not valid? 2. Whether the order of the High Court setting aside award in award case No. 142 of 1953 is a bar to the maintainability of the present proceeding? 3. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this application for passing the decree? 4. Whether the suit is within time? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the costs incurred in O. S. 702 of 1948? 6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the costs of Rs. 302 said to have been incurred by him before the arbitrator? 7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest on the amounts claimed? 8. To what relief if any is the plaintiff entitled?

( 7 ) ADDITIONAL issue framed on 28-8-1958: 1