M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Commercial Court, Rajkot, dated 30.03.2018/ 07.04.2018, passed below Ex.1 in Commercial Execution Petition No.12/2017 by which the learned Judge has overruled the preliminary objection raised by the judgment-debtor that the said execution petition before the Commercial Court shall not be maintainable and/or that the Commercial Court, Rajkot, shall not have any jurisdiction to adjudicate the said execution petition and the objection that only the Commercial Division of the High Court shall have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the execution petition and consequently holding that the Commercial Court, Rajkot, shall have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the said commercial execution petition, the original respondent – a judgment-debtor, has preferred the present First Appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Court, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of the High Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “the Commercial Courts Act, 2015”).

2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:

2.1 It is not in dispute that in an international arbitration between the appellant herein and the original applicant, being ICC Case No.18836/CYK, an award has been passed against the appellant herein. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the said international arbitration proceedings were pursuant to Article 4(2) of the ICC Rules of Arbitration in force as from 01.01.2012. It appears that in its request for arbitration, the original claimant proposed that the language of the arbitration be in English and that there should be a sole arbitrator. That by a letter dated 25.07.2012, the Secretariat of the ICC International Court of Arbitration sent a request for arbitration to the original respondent. The said proposed arbitration proceedings were opposed by the appellant – original respondent. It appears that thereafter, after two to three extensions, the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce decided to submit the matter to a sole arbitrator pursuant to Article 12(2). That thereafter, upon the proposal of the Hong Kong Group, the Court at its session on 11.12.2012, appointed one Mr. Peter Scott Caldwell, Hong Kong, to act as a sole arbitrator. That thereafter, the sole arbitrator declared his award on 31.07.2014 and partly allowed the claim as mentioned in the operative portion of the award, in favour of the respondent herein – original claimant.

2.2 It appears that thereafter, the respondent herein – original claimant filed the execution petition, being Execution Application No.166/2015 in the Court of learned Additional District Court at Gandhidham.

2.3 That the applicants of Civil Application No.1/2018 Axis Bank Limited and UCO Bank jointly submitted the application before the learned executing Court, i.e. the learned Additional District Court at Gandhidham, in whose Court the said execution application was filed, inter alia praying for transfer of the execution petition. It was the case on behalf of the decree-holder that as the award under execution is a domestic arbitral award for more than specified value, the execution petition is required to be transferred to the Commercial Court. However, the learned Additional District Judge, Gandhidham – Kutchh, was of the opinion that in view of the decision of this Court in M/s.OCI Corporation v. Kandla Export Corporation & Ors. - Misc. Civil Application (For Transfer) No.2969/2016 dated 11.11.2016 which is now reported in 2016 SCC OnLine Guj 5981 in which it was held for execution application of arbitration award of more than specified value if it is award of international l arbitration, then Commercial Division would have jurisdiction, the learned Additional District Judge, Gandhidham – Kutchh, by order dated 01.02.2017, returned the execution petition to the decree-holder for presenting it before the approp