SHAFFIQUE, J.

1. This writ petition is filed by the Registrar General, High Court of Kerala challenging Ext.P1 order passed by the District Court, Kozhikode in Arb.O.P.No.143 of 2007. The said application was filed by the 1st respondent herein under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred as the Act) to set aside an Arbitration award passed by the Arbitrator, appointed as per order dated 24/5/2006 in A.R.No.60/05 by the High Court exercising power under section 11(6) of the Act. The Arbitrator passed an award permitting the 2nd respondent herein to recover an amount of Rs.66,35,616/- with interest @ 9% per annum from 30/06/2006 till realization from the 1st respondent.

2. Before the District Court, the 2nd respondent raised a preliminary issue regarding maintainability of the application under Section 34 of the Act contending that since the Arbitrator was appointed by the High Court, by virtue of section 42 of the Act only the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain an application under section 34 of the Act.

3. While considering the preliminary issue, the court below found that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition on a finding that since the Arbitrator was appointed by the High Court exercising power under section 11(6) of the Act, in view of Section 42 of the Act, the petitioner will have to approach the High Court alone since the 'Court' as mentioned under Section 42 of the Act, can only mean the High Court and therefore all further applications in the arbitration proceedings are to be filed before the High Court. The District Court also found support from the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Damayanti Builders v. Union of India [2003(3)Arbitration Law Reports 530] in which it is held that the 'court' as stated in Section 42 is the court before which an application under Section 11(6) of the Act has been filed. Hence the District Court returned the petition to the 1st respondent for presentation before the appropriate court.

4. When the 1st respondent submitted a petition before the High Court on the basis of the aforesaid order, the matter was listed as defective and by an order dated 08/06/2009 in the unnumbered Arb.O.P, one among us, having taken note of the impugned order, directed the Registry to take suo motu proceedings in order to consider whether the aforesaid order is liable to be set aside in exercise of powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. It is in pursuance of the said order that the Registrar had filed the above writ petition and when the matter came up for hearing, one among us, as per order dated 01/07/2011 opined that this matter requires a decision by a Division Bench and hence this matter has come up before this Bench for hearing.

5. The main ground on which Ext.P1 order is challenged is that the definition of court under Section 2(e) of the Act does not include the High Court and therefore even reading Section 42 as a whole, it does not give any indication that the High Court should exercise the power to adjudicate an application under Section 34 of the Act.

6. Sri.K.R.B.Kaimal the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner inter alia contended that Section 11 of the Act, confers jurisdiction to appoint Arbitrator or Arbitrators on the Chief Justice or any person or institution designated by him, on a request made by a party. Whereas under Section 42 of the Act, the application is to be filed before a 'court' and 'court' is defined under Section 2(e) of the Act which clearly excludes the High Court.

Section 2(e) reads as follows:

2(e) :"Court" means the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district, and includes the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject-matter of the arbitration if the same had been the subject-matter of a suit, but does not include any Civil Court of a grade inferior to such principal