Hon’ble Anil Kumar, J.—Heard Sri P.K. Khare and Sri Shirish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Nirmal Seth, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sachin Garg Advocate for opposite party No. 1 as well as learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.

2. Facts, in brief, of the present case are that for construction of commercial Complex at 6, Cooper Road, Lucknow, petitioner/M/S U.P. Cooperative Federation Limited entered into an agreement on 20.12.1995 with M/S K.S.M. Bashir Mohammad & Sons (hereinafter referred to as ‘Contractor’).

Thereafter some dispute and deferences have arisen between the parties arising out of the agreement so for adjudication of the same referred to the Arbitrator Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.C. Saksena(former judge of this Court) under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) and the sole Arbitrator on 24.10.2000 has given an interim award in favour of the Contractor, challenged by way of appeal (F.A.F.O. No. 530 of 2000) by the petitioner, dismissed by judgment and order dated 30.11.2000 again challenged before Hon’ble the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 5215 of 2001 etc. dismissed by order dated 10.5.2001. The said order on reproduction reads as under :

“SLP(C) No. 5215/2001 This Matter will be heard only on the merits of the interim award. So far challenge to the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator is concerned, we decline to exercise our powers. List this matter for final hearing after four months on a non miscellaneous day. Parties may exchange any additional documents, if they are so advised.

SLPNO. ...CC 3015/2001

The Special Leave petition is dismissed both on the ground of delay as well as on merit.”

3. In view of the said facts, contractor/respondent No. 1 filed Execution case under Section 36 of the Act before opposite party No. 2/Civil Judge (Senior Division) Lucknow in which notice have been issued to petitioner who put his appearance and file objection regarding maintainability of the execution proceedings.

4. The Executing Court/Civil Judge (Senior Division) Lucknow passed an impugned order dated 22.5.2001 in Execution Case No. 3 of 2001 challenged by way of present writ petition filed before this Court.

5. Sri P.K. Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the impugned order submits that opposite party No. 2 has got no jurisdiction to entertain the application for execution as he is not a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in view of the provisions under Section 2 (1) (e) of the Act which reads as under :

“2 (1) (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 Civil Court, or any Court of Small Causes.”

6. Accordingly, Sri P.K. Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner with the add of definition as given in Section 2 (1) (e) of the Act submits that the “District Judge” is the “Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction” in a district thus the opposite party No. 2 has no authority to entertain the execution proceedings so the order dated 22.5.2001 (Annexure 1) passed by opposite party No. 2 is non est and without jurisdiction liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, Sri Khare has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court given in the case of M/s I.T.I. Ltd. Allahabad v. District Judge, Allahabad and others, AIR 1998 All 313.

7. Sri N.K. Seth, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sachin Garg Advocate for opposite party No. 1, in rebuttal, submits that as per the admitted facts on record principal amount has already been paid to the Contractor on the basis of interim award given by the Arbitrator However, the interest has not paid to opposit