I.A. Ansari, J.

1. The core issue, which this appeal has raised, is: whether issuance of a notice, under sub-Section (5) of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1996 Act’), is mandatory or directory? Connected with this core issue is the issue : whether an order, entertaining an application, which is made contrary to the provisions of Section 34 (5) of the 1996 Act, by omitting to serve advance notice on the opposite party by the application, would be amenable to Article 227 or 226 of the Constitution of India? Yet another issue, raised in this appeal, is: whether a District Judge, while exercising power under Section 34 of the 1996 Act functions as a Civil Court or a Court other than a Civil Court?

BACKGROUND FACTS

2. The brief facts, giving rise to present appeal, may be summed up as follows:

(i) The appellant bank alleges that the State owes to it a sum of Rs. 570.79 crore under different heads. The bank approached this Court for appointment of an Arbitrator by filing Request Case No. 4 of 2013, which was allowed, on 07.03.2014 and Mr. Justice S.C. Jha (Retired) was appointed as the Arbitrator.

(ii) The order, a