The Court of Subordinate Judge has jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Ordinance, 1996, and the requirement of an arbitration agreement is satisfied by the submission of a photocopy of the agreement if the existence of the agreement is not disputed.

M.Y.Eqbal, J.

1. These there civil revision applications arise out of an order dated 18.7.1996 passed by learned Sub-Judge I, Patna in Title Suit No. 123 of 1996, Title Suit No. 124 of 1996 and Title Suit No. 125 of 1996 whereby and whereunder learned Court below rejected the petition filed by the defendants-petitioners raising a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the suit. Since the party in all the aforesaid suits are same, these there civil revision application are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The plaintiff M/s. R.L. Singh filed the aforementioned three suits under Sec. 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Ordinance, 1996 praying therein refer the claims disputes mentioned in Schedule I of the plaint petition to the appointed sole arbitrator Sri T.K. Mishra, Ministry of Urban Development, Calcutta, with a direction to arbitrate and give award. The plaintiffs case, in short, was that the defendants did not refer the disputes and differences sought to be referred for arbitration regarding two important claims which were left out by the defendant No. 2 Notice of the aforesaid suits were issued to the defendants-petitioners who appeared and filed their written statements and contested the case of plaintiff and prayed for dismissal of the suit. A separate petition was filed by the defendants-petitioners raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the said suit. The maintainability of the suit was challenged by the petitioners on two grounds. Firstly, the plaintiff has not complied with the requirement of Sec. 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Ordinance/1996 as no original agreement or certified copy of the same was filed along with the petition and, consequently, no notice under Sec. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was served on the defendants-petitioners before filing the aforesaid suits.

3. Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, firstly, submitted that learned Court below has failed to consider that the Sub-Judge has no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the plaintiff-opposite party under Sec. 8 of the said ordinance. Learned Counsel submitted that under the ordinance only the District Judge shall be deemed to be the Court and application will lie only before that Court and not before any other Court. Learned Counsel then submitted that Sec. 8 (2) of the said ordinance is mandatory and in absence of arbitration agreement the application filed under Sec. 8 of the ordinance was liable to be rejected in limine,

4. On the other hand, Mr. Jashawir Singh, Arora, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party submitted that there was no illegality in the order passed by learned Court below. Learned Counsel submitted that there was a compliance of Sec. 8 (1) of the ordinance inasmuch as a photocopy of the certified copy of the agreement was filed by the plaintiff-opposite party. Learned Counsel further submitted that existence of the arbitration agreement was not denied and disputed by the defendants-petitioners and, therefore, application under Sec. 8 was rightly entertained by the learned Court below. Learned Counsel further submitted that proceeding under Sec. 8 of the Arbitration Act cannot be said to be a proceeding in a suit and, therefore, service of notice under Sec. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not necessary.

5. First of all, I will take up the point raised by the defendants-petitioners that the application under Sec. 8 is not maintainable in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Parna. According to learned Counsel the Court means principles Civil Court of original jurisdiction which is the District Judge and not a Court inferior to the District Judge. There is no substance in the submission of Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Sec. 2(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Ordinance, now Arbitration and Ordinance Act defines the word Court as under:-

"Cou