Prasenjit Mandal, J.

Challenge is to the Order dated August 30, 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Raigunj in Suit No. OC-22 of 2004 thereby decreeing the suit under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.

An award and then the passing of a decree on the basis of the award are the subject-matters of challenge in this application. The Arbitrator appointed under the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940 submitted his award and on the basis of the award, upon hearing both the sides, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Raigunj passed a decree.

Previously, the learned Trial Judge allowed the application under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 ex parte and against such decree, the petitioner filed a revision being C.O. No.3770 of 2006. While disposing the said revision, this Hon’ble Court passed an order of remand directing the learned Trial Judge to consider the question of jurisdiction first and that if the Court considered that it had jurisdiction to entertain the said application under Section 17 of the said Act of 1940, the learned Trial Judge should dispose of the said application under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 within two months from the date of communication of the order.

Thereafter, upon hearing both the sides and on consideration of the materials on record, the learned Trial Judge allowed the application under Section 17 of the 1940 Act holding that the Court had jurisdiction, and accordingly, a decree was passed. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred by the opposite party / petitioner herein.

Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained.

Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that the plaintiff / opposite party herein did not adduce any evidence in support of the application under Section 17 of the 1940 Act for decision on jurisdiction. Upon analysis of the materials on record, the learned Trial Judge had observed that the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Raigunj and thereafter, he allowed the said application.

Mr. Aninda Mitra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has contended that the defendant / petitioner herein has the Head Office at Salt Lake City and the local Divisional Office is at Siliguri under the District of Darjeeling. The entire transaction originated from the Divisional Office at Siliguri and the Letter of Intent was issued from that office at Siliguri.

Mr. Mitra has also contended that from the paper Annexure – F at page no.101, it would appear that one, Niranjan Barman had received the Letter of Intent on December 29, 1987 on behalf of the plaintiff from the office of the defendant at Siliguri. So, the cause of action arose at Siliguri which was out of the jurisdiction of the concerned Court.

Mr. Mitra has contended that the site for construction was at Dhumdangi (Haptiagach) which is situated outside the jurisdiction of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Raigunj. As such, the said Court had no jurisdiction to allow the application under Section 17 of the Act. Thus, the learned Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 17 of the 1940 Act.

Mr. Mitra has also contended that the Arbitrator did not serve any notice upon the defendant / petitioner herein as to filing of the award and even, the learned Trial Judge did not issue any notice under Section 14(2) of the 1940 Act after receipt of the award from the arbitrator.

He has also contended that as per materials on record, the learned Arbitrator did not file the said award before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Raigunj, but, before the District Judge, Uttar Dinajpur and so such filing did not mean that the award had been filed before the proper Court. He has contended that the learned Trial Judge issued notice upon the defendant on June 11, 2004. It is pertinent to mention tha