The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Additional District Judge, as per the provisions of the Arbitration Act and the Rajasthan Civil Court Ordinance, 1950, has the jurisdiction and competency to hear arbitration matters.

K.S. Rathore, J.-This present petition is directed against the order dated 14.05.2004 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jaipur City. The order impugned has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the District and Sessions Judge is only having jurisdiction to hear the arbitration matter as per Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration Act 1996. As per Section 34 of the Act the application for setting aside the award can only be made before the Court empowered under the Act. The Court has been defined under Section 2 (1)(e), which is as under:-

"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 civil Court, or any Court of small causes."

2. As per Section 18 of the Rajasthan Civil Court Ordinance, 1950, it is the Court of District; Judge which only a principal civil Court of original civil jurisdiction.

3. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Civil Court Ordinance, 1950 deals with Additional Judges. Section 10 of the Ordinance is reproduced as under:-"Additional Judges-(1) When the business pending before any District Judge or District Judges so requires for its speedy disposal, the (State Government) may, upon the recommendation of the High Court sanction the appointment of such number of Additional Judges (for the Court or Courts of such District Judges or District Judges,) as may be necessary.

(2) The provisions of Section 9 shall apply also to the appointment, posting and promotion of , and filling up of vacancies among Additional Judges.

(3) Any Additional Judge so appointed shall discharge any of the functions of a District Judge which the District Judge may assign to him, and in the discharge of those functions he shall exercise the same powers as the District Judge."

4. In view of the aforesaid provisions the petitioner had raised objections before the Additional District Judge regarding the jurisdiction and the competency of the Court to hear the matter in view of the provisions of Arbitration Act and the Rajasthan Civil Court Ordinance, 1950.

5. Learned Counsel for both the parties placed reliance on the definition Clause 2(1)(e). Learned

Counsel for the respondents gave emphasis on last of Section 2(1)(e) which reads as under: "but does not include any civil Court of a grade inferior to such principal civil Court, or any Court of small causes."

6. After referring the aforesaid lines of Section 2(1)(e) he interpreted the language of the section that District Judge includes Additional District Judges as the Court of Additional District Judge is not inferior Court to District Judges Court in the matters relating to judicial work.

7. Learned Counsel for the respondents also placed reliance on Sub-section (3) of Section 10 of

the Rajasthan Civil Court Ordinance, 1950, which reads as under: "Any Additional Judge so appointed shall discharge any of the functions of a District Judge which the District Judge may assign to him, and in the discharge of those functions, he shall exercise the same powers as the District Judge."

8. In support of his submissions he placed reliance on the Judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Smt. Pushpa Devi vs. Radhey Shyam, reported in AIR 1972 Rajasthan 260.

9. He also placed reliance on the Judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of State of Assam & Anr. vs. Kuseswar Saikia & Ors., reported in 1969 (3) SCC 505, wherein the Honble Supreme Court has expressed that the "District Judge" includes among others an Additional District Judge and an Additional Sessions Judge.

10. The same view has been taken by the Allahabad High Court in the Judgment reported in AIR 1998 Allahabad 313 (M/s. I.T.I. Ltd., Allahabad vs. District Judge, Allahabad & Ors.).

11.