Prasenjit Mandal, J.

This application is directed against the order no.12 dated May 11, 2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sixteenth Court, Alipore in Misc. Case No.1126 of 2008 thereby rejecting an application under Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. A dispute arose between the parties over certain points of an agreement dated January 30, 2002, which lays down a clause for settlement of the dispute by appointment of an arbitrator. Accordingly, an arbitrator was appointed by the Hon’ble Justice, Calcutta High Court. The arbitrator submitted an award. The opposite party filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the learned District Judge, South 24 Parganas at Alipore. In that application, the petitioners filed an application under Section 42 of the said Act of 1996 contending, inter alia, that the application for setting aside the award is not maintainable before the learned District Judge, South 24 Parganas. That application was dismissed by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. Mr. S. P. Roy chowdhury, learned senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submits that according to the scheme of the Act when there is an arbitration clause in an agreement, the dispute between the parties shall be settled through the arbitration proceedings and for that reason at the initiation of one of the parties, the Hon’ble Chief Justice of this Hon’ble High Court appointed an arbitrator to solve the dispute. Then the arbitrator submitted his award. That award was challenged by the opposite party by way of filing an application under Section 34 of the said Act of 1996. According to the provisions of Section 42 of the said Act of 1996, such award can be challenged only before the Hon’ble High Court and not to the Court of the learned District Judge at Alipore. Thus, he contends that since initial application was initiated before this Hon’ble Court, the subsequent applications are to be filed before this Hon’ble Court and not to any other forum. In support of his contention, Mr. Roy chowdhyry has referred to the decision of (2008)3 C.L.T. Page 1 and 2003 (3) ARB.L.R. 530 (Delhi), thus he submits that the learned Additional District Judge has committed a wrong and so the impugned order should be set aside. On the other hand, Mr. Chowdhury, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the opposite party, submits that according to the definition of the word “Court” as laid down in Section 2(e), “Court” means the principal civil court of original jurisdiction in a District. Since the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of Tollygungee Police Station, which is certainly within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned District Judge, South 24 Parganas, the application for setting aside the award must be filed before the learned District Judge, South 24 Parganas at Alipore. Such a course has been resorted to and so the learned Additional District Judge was quite justified in rejecting the application under Section 42 of the said Act of 1996. In support of his contention, Mr. Chowdhury also refers to the decision of (2008)2 WBLR (Cal) 34 and thus, he submits that according to the decision of the Single Bench of this Hon’ble Court, the application before the learned District Judge was quite maintainable and so, the learned Additional District Judge was quite justified in rejecting the application under Section 34 of the said Act of 1996. Thus, the question that arises for decision is whether the learned Additional District Judge is justified in dismissing the application under Section 42 of the said Act of 1996. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that the matter in dispute between the parties went to an arbitrator, namely, R. N. Chakraborty, appointed by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the High Court at Calcutta under Section 11(6) of