B. Siva Sankara Rao, J.

1. The revision is maintained by M/s. Dhruv Medical Center, a partnership firm with Office at Vinayak Towers near Bowenpally, Secunderabad, against Vijay Shanker Patel and his wife Smt. Sumanthi Patel. It is impugning the order of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad dated 08.08.2016 passed in the Tr.O.P. No. 312 of 2016 by transferring the arbitration O.P. No. 2139 of 2015 pending on the file of IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad to the file of I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, to be tried along with E.P. No. 32 of 2015 pending on the file of I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. The contentions in the grounds of revision vis-à-vis the submissions of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner supra impugning the transfer order supra are that the impugned order dated 08.08.2016 is opposed to Section 42 of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Act) which speaks on jurisdiction that, notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this part or in any other law for the time being in force where with respect to an arbitration agreement in application under this part has been made in a Court that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings and of subsequent applications arisen out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. It is the contention therefrom that the lower Court did not consider the factum of the respondents themselves filed O.P. No. 1123 of 2014 on the file of X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for interim measure under Section 9 of the Act. Thereby according to Section 42 of the Act supra that very same Court (X Additional Chief Judge, CCC, Hyderabad) alone shall have jurisdiction to try all subsequent applications including the proceedings challenging the award passed, invoking Section 34 of the Act which is the present arbitration O.P. pending as 2139/2015 before that Court and transfer of the same to the I Additional Chief Judge, CCC, Secunderabad invoking Section 24 CPC by the learned Chief Judge, CCC, Hyderabad, by the impugned order dated 08.08.2016 in Tr.O.P. No. 312 of 2016 is unsustainable which is nothing but assumed jurisdiction not provided and further that Court is no way subordinate to the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, but for at equal footing and lower Court also not considered the same in proper prospective so also of the Constitution Bench expression in Bharat Aluminium Company v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc., (2012) 9 SCC 552. in relation to territorial jurisdiction on arbitration case holding that both the Courts where the arbitration Tribunal has passed the award and the Courts where the property is situated shall have jurisdiction to try the application under Section 34 of the Act and it is for the petitioner to file Section 34 application in O.P. No. 2139 of 2015 to choose any of the 2 places and it is left open to the Chief Judge to transfer the same despite opposed. It is also the contention that the learned Chief Judge did not appreciate of no provision in the Act for transfer of the proceedings arisen out of the Act to another Court to try along with the proceedings which are not arisen out of the Act, but under the provisions of the general law including from reading of Section 19 of the Act that it is only in the event of 2 proceedings arisen out of the Act if pending before 2 different Courts, the same can be tried by one Court to avoid conflict in decisions and multiplicity. The learned Chief Judge also did not properly consider there is nothing to adjudicate in the E.P. No. 32 of 2015 the lis covered by arbitration O.P. No. 2139 of 2015 under Section 34 of the Act, for transfer despite opposed, that too prejudice to the revision petitioner. In the event of O.P. No. 2139 of 2015 by virtue of the transfer decided by the I Additional Chief Judge, CCC, Sec