Heard the parties.

This Civil Revision is directed against the order dated 4.4.2009 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge-IV, Patna, in Execution Case No. 4 of 2007/01 of 2008, whereby and whereunder the executing court has held in this matter, that in view of the fact that the Arbitrator was appointed by the High Court in exercise of its power under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act”), the execution case would be maintainable before the court below and not before the Subordinate Judge.

2. The petitioner challenges the aforesaid order chiefly on two grounds:–

(i) Since the petitioner has already moved before the Sub Judge-I, Patna, by filing Miscellaneous Case No. 14 of 2007 for setting aside the earlier award given by the sole Arbitrator, the executing court was duty bound to stay execution proceeding awaiting decision to be taken by the court concerned in the aforesaid case.

(ii) The Additional District and Sessions Judge-IV, Patna, does not have jurisdiction to proceed with the application filed under Section 36 of the Act for enforcement of the award given by the sole arbitrator.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in support of the aforesaid contentions, submitted that on bare perusal of Section 36 of the Act, which is the relevant provision for enforcement of award, it would be manifest that the application for enforcement of award can be entertained either after expiry of the time for making application to set aside the arbitral award under Section 34 of the Act or if such application having been made, it has been refused by the court concerned. In the present case, since the Miscellaneous Case No.14 of 2007 for setting aside the award has already been filed before Sub-Judge-I, Patna, the execution case should have been stayed awaiting result of such application. It has further been submitted that the Additional District and Sessions Judge, not being covered within the meaning of “Court” as per the definition under Section 2 (1) (e) of the Act, would not have jurisdiction to proceed with the execution case. Learned counsel drew attention of this Court towards the definition provided under Section 2 (1) (e) of the Act to impress upon that the “Court” means the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district which is a Court of Sub-Judge having been unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the suit. The Additional District and Sessions Judge, though being superior in hierarchy, but having got no original jurisdiction for deciding the suit, is not a Court with the definition aforesaid and hence is not competent to enforce the award under Section 36 of the Act. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon three reported judgments of this Court rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Md. Sadique Vs. State of Bihar (2000(4) PLJR 814), Thakur Prasad Singh Vs. The State of Bihar and another (2000(4) PLJR 843) and Union of India & Ors. Vs. M/s Jialal Kishorilal (2010(3) BLJ 129).

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for opposite parties submitted that firstly, there is no bar in making an application under Section 36 of the Act prior to a decision having been taken under Section 34 of the Act by the competent court, however, the executing court shall proceed with to enforce the award only after either the time for making application to set aside the arbitral award under Section 34 of the Act has expired or on such application having been made, the same has been refused by the Court. Secondly, the application for setting aside the arbitral award not having been made before the Court of competent jurisdiction, the same cannot be construed to be an application in accordance with law. Thus, it has to be deemed by the executing court that no application has been made under Section 34 of the Act for setting aside the arbitral award. In above view of the matter, it has been contended that the court below w