ORDER :- The question for consideration in this Civil Revision is whether a certain civil court in district Moradabad is competent to dispose of an objection against an award. The question arises under the following circumstances.

2. Rup Kishore is a contractor of district Moradabad. There were certain disputes between Rup Kishore on one side and the Union of India and the Deputy Chief Engineer, Northern Railway, on the other side. On 1-6-1963 Rup Kishore applied to the court of the Civil Judge Moradabad for referring the dispute to arbitration under section 20 of the Arbitration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In pursuance of that application, the learned Civil Judge made a reference to arbitration. Later the case was transferred from the file of the Civil Judge, Moradabad to the file of the Judge, Small Cause Court, Moradabad, who had powers of an Additional Civil Judge. The Arbitrator gave his award on 14-5-1965. The award was submitted to court. On 5-7-1965 the Union of India filed an objection against the award. On 4-8-1965, the case was transferred from the file of the Judge, Small Cause Court, Moradabad to the file of the Additional Civil Judge, Moradabad. On 30-9-1965 the Union of India filed a preliminary objection that the court had no jurisdiction in the matter. That preliminary objection was rejected by the Additional Civil Judge, Moradabad on 12-10-1965. The present civil revision by Union of India is directed against that order, dated 12-10-1965.

3. Mr. Sanyal appearing for the applicant points out that, whereas the award was filed in the court of the Judge, Small Cause Court, and the objection dated 5-7-1965 against the award was filed in the same court, it is the Additional Civil Judge. Moradabad who is now trying to dispose of that objection. It was urged for the applicant that this procedure is prohibited by section 31 of the Act.

4. Section 31 of the Act deals with jurisdiction. Section 31 states :-

"(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, an award may be filed in any Court having jurisdiction in the matter to which the reference relates.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force and save as otherwise provided in this Act, all questions regarding the validity, effect or existence of an award or an arbitration agreement between the parties to the agreement or persons claiming under them shall be decided by the Court in which the award under the agreement has been, or may be filed and by no other Court.

(3) All applications regarding the conduct of arbitration proceedings or otherwise arising out of such proceedings shall be made to the Court where the award has been or may be filed, and to no other Court.

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force, where in any reference any application under this Act has been made in a Court competent to entertain it, that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over the arbitration proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that reference and the arbitration proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court."

5. Relying on sub-section (4) of section 31 of the Act, Mr. Sanyal contended that the objection having been filed in the court of the Judge, Small Cause Court, that court alone has jurisdiction over the arbitration proceedings. On the other hand, the lower court has relied on section 24, C. P. C. Section 41 of the Act states :-

"Subject to the provisions of this Act and of rules made thereunder (a) the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply to all proceedings before the Court. Mr. Sanyal conceded that certain provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to proceedings under the Arbitration Act. But he contended that, in view of the restrictions placed by section 31 of the Act, section 24, C. P. C. is not applicable.

6. In Shukrullah v. Mst. Rahmat Bibi, AIR 1947 All. 304 there were three connec