( 1. ) THIS writ petition is filed by the defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the order dated,llth August 2008 passed by Seventh Additiopal District judge, Indore in Misc. Judicial Case No. 13/03 whereby the learned Additional District judge has dismissed the application filed by the present petitioner under Section 2 (l) (e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996.

( 2. ) BRIEF facts of the case giving rise to this writ petition are that there was some agreement between the petitioner and the respondents, in execution of which certain dispute arose between the parties and the matter was referred to Arbitrator as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity the "arbitration act" ). The Arbitrator passed award on 11-4-2003. ( 3. ) RESPONDENT No. 1 filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act for setting aside the award dated 11-4-2003. The said application was registered as Arbitration Case No. 13/03 before the Seventh additional District Judge, Indore.

( 4. ) DURING the pendency of these proceedings, an application under Section 2 (1) (e) of the Arbitration Act was filed by the present petitioner stating that the Seventh Additional district Judge, Indore has no jurisdiction to entertain the said application. According to him, application under Section 34 of the arbitration Act is maintainable only before the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. He invited attention of this Court to the definition of the "court" as defined in section 2 (l) (e) of the Arbitration Act which reads as under :-"court" rneans 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 to any Court of Small Causes. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus contends that as per the definition of the "court" as per definition under Section 2 (1) (e) of the Arbitration Act, the "court" means the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in the district and therefore, the Additional district Judge has no jurisdiction.

( 5. ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has referred to the provisions of Section 42 of the Arbitration Act which reads as under:-42. Jurisdiction-Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Part or any other law for the time being in force, where with respect to an arbitration agreement any application under this Part has been made in a Court, that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and the arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other court. Thus, as per the provisions of Section 42 of the Arbitration Act, if any application is filed under the Arbitration Act in a particular Court, then that Court alone has jurisdiction to deal with the subsequent application and no other Court has jurisdiction to decide the same. ( 6. ) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the petitioner, principal Civil Court means that District Judge alone. To buttress his contention, he lay hands on a decision of allahabad High Court in the case of M/s. ITI Ltd. Allahabad v. District Judge, allahabad, AIR 1998 All 313 and the judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Raipur Development Authority v. M/s. Sarin Construction Company, Raipur, air 2006 Chhattisgarh 12. In both these cases, the Allahabad High Court and the chhattisgarh High Court respectively have taken a view that the District Judge has no jurisdiction to transfer application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act to Additional District Judge and the Additional District Judge hearing the application under section 31 of the Arbitration Act has