IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Review Peition along with Delay Condonation Application IN Arbitration Petition No. 12 of 2007 Tehri Hydro Development Corporation Ltd. through its Engineer in Charge, Bhagirathpuram, Tehri, Uttarakhand. (Petitioner) …… Applicant. Versus M/s P.E.S.Engineers Pvt. Ltd. R/O Tehri Project Koti Colony, Tehri Garhwal (Uttaranchal) through its Executive Director Sri Ravi Suresh. (Respondent) … Opposite Party. Sri U.K.Uniyal, Senior Advocate, with Sri Ss\hobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner. Sri S.K.Jain, learned counsel for the O.P.-respondent. Date May 07, 2008. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Delay Condonation Application No. 1795 of 2008 & Review Petition No. 353 of 2008) Heard Sri U.K.Uniyal, Senior Advocate, with Sri Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the review applicant (petitioner) as well as Sri S.K.Jain, learned counsel for the opposite party-respondent on the review petition, which is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay. The grounds shown in the affidavit are sufficient to make out a case for condonation of delay in filing the review petition. The application for condonation of delay is allowed and the delay in filing the review petition is condoned. This review petition has been moved by the petitioner for review of the order dated 15th January 2008 passed in Arbitration Petition No. 12 of 2007, whereby the application under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Act), moved by the petitioner was dismissed in limine. It was observed in the order that under Section 2(e) of the Act “Court” means the principal civil Court of original 2 jurisdiction in a district and for the purposes of the present matter, the “Court” means the court of the District Judge concerned. Learned counsel for the review petitioner, learned Senior Advocate Sri U.K.Uniyal, with Sri Shobhit Saharia has submitted that the provision of Section 42 of the Act was not dealt with in the judgment. According to him, in Section 42 of the Act for the purposes of jurisdiction, the “Court” means the Chief Justice. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite party-respondent has submitted that there is no provision of review in the Act, therefore, the review petition is not legally maintainable and the relief, which was earlier refused to the petitioner, cannot now be granted to it by reviewing the earlier order. I have considered the submissions made by the earned counsel for the review petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the opposite party and perused the material on record. I am not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the review applicant that in Section 42, the word “Court” has been used for the Chief Justice, therefore, this Court should have entertained the application under Section 14 of the Act. To my mind, the Chief Justice cannot be termed as a “Court” for the purpose of the provisions of Section 42 of the Act and the definition of the word “Court” as given in Section 2(e) of the Act would be applicable, as mentioned above. It may be mentioned that the definition clause under Section 2(e) of the Act as well as Section 14 under which the petition was moved by the petitioner before this Court had been elaborately dealt with in the order. It was also observed that the High Court of Uttarakhand is not having ordinary original civil jurisdiction. The application under Section 14 of the Act was found to be not maintainable before this Court. 3 Moreover, in the petition moved by the review applicant under Section 14 of the Act, there is no reference to Section 42 of the Act and aid of Section 42 of the Act is being taken for the first time in the review application. I see no good ground to review the order dated 15-1- 2007 passed by this Court. The review petition has no force and the same is liable to be dismissed outright. The review petition is accordingly dismissed. ( B.S.Verma, J. ) RCP 4