G.R. UDHWANI, J.

1. Leave to amend the cause-title.

2. Question in this appeal from order relates to the identification of the competent Court for exercise of the jurisdiction for execution of an award rendered under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (part-I) (for short the Act of 1996).

3. The appellant successfully obtained the arbitration award in arbitration proceedings No.85/2011-12 and for the purpose of its execution, the execution petition being 82 of 2013 came to be instituted in the District Court at Vadodara which was dismissed with the following order:

"ORDER

I. Present Execution Petition is dismissed, as not maintainable before this Court.

II. Applicant will be at liberty to file fresh Execution Petition before the appropriate Court having the pecuniary and/or Territorial jurisdiction.

III. No Order as to cost."

4. The said proceedings were presented with the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chhota Udepur. After the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge at Bodeli was brought into existence, the said execution petition was transferred and was re-numbered as No.2 of 2018. The appellant thus invoked the jurisdiction of the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Bodeli with Execution Application No.2 of 2018 wherein the following operative order came to be passed:

"ORDER

Execution petition of the judgment creditor is hereby ordered to be returned as per O.7, R.10 r/w. Sec. 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

It is further ordered that the judgment creditor has to receive the execution petition along-with the documents on presenting their certified copies & institute the same before the proper forum [Hon'ble District Court]u. O.7, R.10-A of the Code within one month from the date of this order for the purpose of presentation before the proper forum."

No order as to costs."

5. Thus, this Appeal from Order.

6. As can be noticed from the two orders above referred, the two Courts below had expressed the opinion contrary to each other in regard to their respective jurisdiction.

7. To resolve the controversy, reference would be necessary to few legal provisions, including those under Commercial Courts Act, 2015 since during the pendency of arbitration proceedings, the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 intervened influencing jurisdiction of certain Courts. It contemplated constitution of the commercial Courts under Section 3 which reads thus:

"3. Constitution of Commercial Courts. (1) The State Government, may after consultation with the concerned High Court, by notification, constitute such number of Commercial Courts at District level, as it may deem necessary for the purpose of exercising the jurisdiction and powers conferred on those Courts under this Act:

3[Provided that with respect to the High Courts having ordinary original civil jurisdiction, the State Government may, after consultation with the concerned High Court, by notification, constitute Commercial Courts at the District

Judge level:

Provided further that with respect to a territory over which the High Courts have ordinary original civil jurisdiction, the State Government may, by notification, specify such pecuniary value which shall not be less than three lakh rupees and not more than the pecuniary jurisdiction exercisable by the District Courts, as it may consider necessary.]

1[(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the State Government may, after consultation with the concerned High Court, by notification, specify such pecuniary value which shall not be less than three lakh rupees or such higher value, for whole or part of the State, as it may consider necessary.];

(2) The State Government shall, after consultation with the concerned High Court specify, by notification, the local limits of the area to which the jurisdiction of a Commercial Court shall extend and may, from time to time, increase, reduce or alter such limits.

(3) The 2[State Government may], with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court appoint one or mor