The Additional District Judge falls within the definition of 'court' under the J&K Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997, and has jurisdiction to entertain a petition under the Act.

1. The question that has come up for consideration in this case is whether the finding of the learned Single Judge, that the court of Additional District Judge would be deemed to be a civil court of original jurisdiction within the purview of the definition of the term `court defined in Section 2(1)(c) of the J&K Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997 is correct or not?

2. Petitioner before the learned Single Judge filed an application under Section 9 of the J&K Arbitration and Conciliation Act in the court of Principal District Judge, Jammu. Principal District Judge expressed his inability to hear the case due to personal reasons and placed the matter before this Court for entrusting the case to some other court of competent jurisdiction. The matter ultimately came up before the learned Single Judge. Objection was raised by respondent therein contending that 2nd Additional District Judge has no jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Section 9 of the Act, since jurisdiction has been specifically conferred only on the Principal court of original jurisdiction of the District or before the High Court. The learned Single Judge elaborately considered the scope of Sections 2(1)(e) and 42 of the J&K Arbitration and Conciliation Act; Sections 16 and 40 of the Civil Courts Act and Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure and took the view that the term `court deserves to be liberally construed and would include the court of an Additional District Judge also. Learned Judge held that Additional District Judge would be deemed to be a civil court of original jurisdiction within the purview of the definition of the term `court as defined in section 2(e) of the J&K Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997.

3. We heard elaborate arguments from Shri R. K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Shri P. N. Raina, counsel for the other side.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants referred to various provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940, J&K Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997 and Civil Courts Act etc. Heavy reliance was placed by the counsel on the Full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in M/s. Fountain Head Developers v. Maria Arcangela Sequeira (FB), AIR 2007 Bombay 149. Learned counsel also made available a copy of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2003 and submitted that having noticed the lacunae in the Act, definition clause in the steps have been taken to amend Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and other related provisions of the Act so to confer jurisdiction on any court of coordinate jurisdiction like the Additional District Judge. Learned counsel submitted that this would indicate that the intention of the Legislature was to confer exclusive jurisdiction only on the principal District Judge and the High Court as per sections 2(1)(e), Section 42 and other related provisions.

5. Shri Raina, learned counsel appearing for the other side, tried to distinguish the Full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court (supra) on facts. Over and above, reliance was placed on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Villiappa Software Technological Park (Pvt.) Ltd. v. C Sunderam, 2002(1) Arb. LR 530 (Karnataka) and the Division Bench judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Globe Cogeneration Power Ltd. v. Sri Hiranyakeshi Sahakari, 2005(1) Arb. LR 502 (Karnataka).

6. The definition clause under section 2(1)(e) of the J&K Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997 is pari materia with the Central Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. For easy reference, we may extract section 2(1)(e) of the Central Act hereunder:

" `Court means the principal civil court of original jurisdiction in a district, and includes the High Court in exercise of its ordinary civil jurisdiction, having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject-matter of the reference if the same had been the subject-matter of a suit, but docs not include any civil court of a grade inferior