Mridula Bhatkar, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, the Petition is heard finally and disposed of at the stage of admission.

2. The petitioner-Union of India challenges the order dated 24th January, 2017 passed by the Additional District Judge, Pune in Execution Petition No. 2416 of 2016. The respondent is a decree holder in the arbitral proceedings, so he filed Special Darkhast No. 2418 of 2016 before the District Judge, Pune.

3. In this case, the Union of India had filed Civil Miscellaneous Application No, 450 of 2011 challenging the award under section 34 of the Arbitration Act for setting aside the arbitral award passed in favour of the respondent. The said application was rejected by the District Judge-12, Pune on 2nd May, 2014. After losing that case, the UOI preferred Arbitration Appeal bearing No. 33 of 2014 before this Court, which was dismissed by this Court by order dated 18th June, 2015. In the said Appeal, no ground was taken by the petitioner/UOI that the said Application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act ought to have been entertained and decided by the Principal District Judge and should have decided by the District Judge-12, Pune.

4. Thereafter, the respondent filed Special Darkhast No. 2418 of 2016 for execution of award under section 36 of the Arbitration Act. The Application under section 36 was presented before the District Court. In the said Darkhast, one Application Exhibit 12 was filed by UOI praying that the darkhast should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction, as it was not filed before the Principal District Judge, who was supposed to be the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction under the Arbitration Act. The said Application was opposed by the respondent/decree holder that the execution was filed in the Court of Principal District Judge and his Court is not Subordinate Court like Civil Judge Senior Division, Civil Judge Junior Division or Small Causes Court. The said Application was rejected on 24th January, 2017 and learned District Judge-13, Pune has taken a view that under section 36 of the Act, if the execution petition is filed before the Principal District Judge, it can be assigned by the Principal District Judge to any other Court including the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division.

5. The learned counsel for UOI submitted that in the said Darkhast, the judgment debtor-Union of India moved an application that the Darkhast for enforcement of the arbitral award is not maintainable before the said Court because the Court as defined under section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is of a Principal District Judge and the order is passed by the Additional District Judge, Pune and the proceedings are before the Additional District Judge, Pune, hence the order passed by him rejecting the application taking objection to the maintainability of the order is to be quashed and set aside in view of Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent while supporting the order passed by the District Judge, Pune pointed out that the order is not passed by the Additional District Judge as mentioned in prayer clause but it is the order of the District Judge, Pune. He submitted that as per the definition of "Court" under section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration Act, it is the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district and it is not to be read as Principal District Judge. He further submitted that in fact earlier the petitioner itself has filed the proceedings under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the District Court and it was disposed of by the District Judge-12, Pune. The learned counsel further submitted that the Arbitral award is enforced by the District Court and it may be either Principal District Judge or any other District Judge.

7. In support of his submissions, he relied on the order of Division Bench of Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court dated 22nd and 23rd Dec