The Additional District Judge lacks jurisdiction to entertain applications under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act if the application was initially filed before the District Judge.

1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by order dated 13-3-2002 passed by learned Additional District Judge (Special Judge), Raipur in Suit No. 2-B/2000 whereby learned Additional District Judge has rejected the objection raised by the petitioner herein that the Additional District Judge has no jurisdiction to decide the application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 .

2. Brief facts leading to filing of this petition are that a dispute had arisen between the parties and therefore, the matter was referred to the Arbitrator, who passed the arbitral award dated 11-12-1998 in favour of the respondent herein. Against the said award the petitioner herein moved an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter shall be referred as to "the Act of 1996") in the Court of District Judge, Raipur for setting aside the said award. However, learned District Judge transferred that application to the Court of learned Additional District Judge (Special Judge) Raipur, which was registered as Suit No. 2-B/2000. The petitioner herein by amending his pleadings challenged the jurisdiction of learned Additional District Judge (Special Judge), Raipur to deal with that application on the ground that learned Additional District Judge has no jurisdiction to decide the application filed under section 34 of the Act of 1996. Amongst other issues, Issue No. 1 was framed as preliminary issue objection regarding the jurisdiction and same was decided by learned Additional District Judge vide order dated 13-3-2002 against the petitioner herein holding that Additional District Judge has jurisdiction to decide the application under of the Act of 1996.

3. The petition of the petitioner is that in view of the provisions of Section 2 (e) and 42 of the Act of 1996 only the District Judge which is the Principal Civil Court of District, has the jurisdiction to decide the application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996. Moreover the said application was filed before that Court, therefore, that Court was not entitled to transfer the said application to learned Additional District Judge. Therefore, the order impugned passed by learned Additional District Judge is perverse, illegal and contrary to law.

4. Return to this writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondent in which it has been mentioned that the Court of Additional District Judge has also vested with the powers of District Judge to decide the cases. Moreover, the District Judge while exercising the powers under Section 24 of the CPC transferred the application to Additional District Judge, therefore, Additional District Judge is competent to decide the application and who is not inferior to the District Judge.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in view of the provisions of Section 2 (e) and 42 of the Act of 1996 and Section 3(17) of the General Clauses Act , the Additional District Judge has no jurisdiction to decide the application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996, for the reasons that as per (e) of the Act of 1996 the "Court" means the Principal Civil Court of the district and as per Section 3(17) of General Clauses Act the District Judge is the Judge of a Principal Civil Court and in view of Section 42 when any application with respect to an arbitration agreement is filed before the District Judge, the District Judge has no autho