V.V.S. RAG, J :- This civil revision petition under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the Judgment Debtor (J.Dr) against the order dated 30.7.2009 in EA No.157 of 2008 in EP No.26 of 2007 in AA NO.66 of 1999.

2. A short but interesting question of law that falls for consideration in this revision petition is as to the jurisdiction of Additional District Judge to adjudicate the execution petition filed for enforcing the award passed by the Arbitrator under the provisions of Arbitration and• Conciliation Act, 1996.

3. The brief fact of the matter and background throwing up such question is as follows. The respondent is a company engaged in the business of financing motor vehicles. Petitioner availed a sum of Rs.6,15,000/- for purchase of a bus bearing Regn. No KA 04-6737. The amount was sanctioned. It is payable in 24 instalments @ Rs.36,000/- per month. Petitioner statedly paid a sum of Rs.76,895/- but committed default thereafter. On 5.3.1997, the bus met with an accident at Toopran Village and was brought to Vijayawada for necessary repairs. As the petitioner expressed inability to get the bus repaired and put it on road, respondent got the bus repaired and sold the same in an auction. An amount of Rs.4,75,000/- was realized. For the balance amount, respondent invoked arbitration clause in the hire purchase agreement, in vain. Therefore, they approached the Court of District Judge for appointment of Arbitrator. An Arbitrator was appointed. An award was passed on 20.2.2002 for an amount of Rs.3,62,105/with interest at 18% per annum payable by petitioner to respondent. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed an application under Section 34 of Arbitration Act being AA No.2 of 2006 on the file of the Court of District Judge, Rajahmundry. The same is pending.

4. The respondent filed EP No.43 of 2002 and brought the immovable property of petitioner - a residential house at Kakinada; for sale. As there were no bidders in the auction conducted by the Court, E.P. was closed. It was closed on 10.10.2006. Again in 2007 respondent filed EP No.26 of 2007 for enforcing the arbitral award dated 20.2.2002 by attachment and sale of immovable property of petitioner. Petitioner moved an application under Section 47 of CPC being EA No.157 of 2008 to drop the execution proceedings on the ground that E.P. is barred by limitation, that E.P. schedule property is situated outside the jurisdiction of Rajahmundry Court and that E.P. is not maintainable in view of pendency of application under Section 34 of Arbitration Act. Petitioner also urged that “Principal Civil Court” for the purpose of enforcing the award is the "Principal District Court" and therefore Additional District Judge has no jurisdiction to entertain the E.P. By impugned order, learned I Additional District Judge rejected the contentions and dismissed EA No.lS7 of 2008.

5. In this revision petition, placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Ankati Satyamaiah v Sallangula Lalaiah, 2003 (2) ALD 818 = 2003 (3) ALT 193, Paramjeet Singh Patheja v ICDS Ltd., AIR 2007 SC 168 and Vijay Gupta v. Renu Malhotra, AIR 2008 SC 83, learned Counsel for petitioner reiterates the grounds urged before the lower Court. Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent relies on Sections 36 to 39 of CPC and the decision of this Court in Globsyn Technologies Ltd v. Eskaaycee Infosys, 2004 (3) ALD 163 = 2004 (2) ALT 174 and submits that Additional District Judge not being inferior to District Judge is equally competent to entertain a petition for enforcing arbitral award. He points out that though the case was filed by respondent before the Court of District Judge, the same was for the sake of administrative convenience made over to the Court of I Additional District Judge, Rajahmundry, and therefore, there is no infirn1ity in the lower Court entertaining the E.P.

6. Section 2(2) of CPC defines, “decree” means formal expression of adjudication which conclusively determines the