FAO No.3722 of 2009 -1- ****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3722 of 2009 Date of decision:15.10.2010. Ravi Parkash ...Appellant Versus Utri Haryana Bijli Virtran Nigam and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’B LE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Mukul Aggarwal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Praveen Gupta, Advocate, for the respondents. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) One of the questions involved in this appeal is as to “whether the Civil Judge (Senior Division) has the jurisdiction to decide objection under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996” (for short, 'the Act'). This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonepat dated 16.10.2008 by which objection filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Act against the arbitral award dated 06.06.2002, has been dismissed. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) had no jurisdiction to decide the objection filed under Section 34 of the Act as the objections are maintainable against the Court which is defined under Section 2(e) of the Act which means the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district. It is submitted that the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district would mean the Court of District Judge. In this regard, he has referred to Section 24 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 which FAO No.3722 of 2009 -2- ****** provides that “the Court of the District Judges shall be deemed to be the District Court or principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in the district”. In all fairness, he also submits that initially the objection was filed by the appellant before the District Judge, Sonepat but on his asking, the matter was referred to the Civil Judge (Senior Division). However, it is submitted that even if the matter was referred by the District Judge to the Civil Judge (Senior Division), the jurisdiction of the said Court, in this regard, cannot be maintained if it is not so provided under the statute. Reacting to the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that no jurisdiction vests with the Civil Judge (Senior Division) to decide objection under Section 34 of the Act, therefore, the argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant is not misplaced. However, it is submitted that if this court is relegating the appellant to his remedy of filing objection before the competent Court of law, they may be allowed to raise all the objections as are available to them within the purview of law. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances, the question framed in the beginning of this order is answered in affirmative by holding that the Civil Judge (Senior Division) would have no jurisdiction to decide the objection filed under Section 34 of the Act as the jurisdiction lies with the Court which means principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction defined under Section 24 of the Punjab Court Act, 1918 to be 'Court of District Judge'. It is also observed that no party can confer jurisdiction, upon a Court with their consent if the Court does not have the said jurisdiction under the statute. In view thereof, the present appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The appellant is relegated to his remedy of filing objection, if so desired, before the competent Court of law, namely, the District Judge, Sonepat and the respondents are also given liberty to raise all objections available to them in accordance with law. Copy dasti. October 15, 2010. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE