IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.230 of 2009 ----------- M/s Alka Theater, situated atTownship Tapasya, P.S. Begusarai District Begusarai, through its Manager and Attorney, Sri Kundan Kumar, son of Sri Yogendra Choudhary, resident of village Baghawara, P.O. Larwara, PO.S. Muffasil, District Begusarai. …Plaintiff-Opposite Party-Petitioner -versus- M/s Sai Entertainment, through its Attorney Mr. Ram Mohan Jha, Son of late Maheshwar Jha, son of late Maheshwar Jha, at 408, Hari Om Commercial Complex, New Dak Bunglow Road, P.S.& P.O. Gandhi Maidan in the Town and District of Patna. …Defendant-Petitioner-Opposite Party. --------- For the petitioner : M/s Jashavir Singh Arora and Ajay Kumar Ajay, Advocates. For the Opp. Party : Mr. J. N. Tripathy, Advocate. ------- 04/ 18.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party. 2. This civil review petition has been filed by the plaintiff-opposite party-petitioner for review of order dated 24.07.2009, by which this Court allowed Civil Revision No. 29 of 2007 with specific directions/observations. 3. The matter has arisen out of Misc. Case No. 15 of 2005, which was filed by the petitioner for setting aside Award dated 19.09.2005 prepared by the arbitrators. The said miscellaneous case was allowed by the learned Subordinate Judge- I, Begusarai vide his order dated 27.10.2006 setting aside the aforesaid award prepared by the arbitrators, who were directed to consider the matter afresh. 4. Against the aforesaid order in the miscellaneous case, the defendant-petitioner-opposite party filed Civil Revision No. 29 of 2007 before this Court, which, after hearing the parties, 2 was allowed on 24.07.2009 and the said order of the learned court below was set aside, giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the award before any appropriate court of proper jurisdiction raising all the points, which he had raised in the civil revision or in the miscellaneous case. The said order of this Court is under challenge in the instant civil review petition. 5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that Misc. Case No. 15 of 2005, in which the impugned order was passed, was filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ( hereinafter referred to as `the Act’ for the sake of brevity ) and hence the order setting aside the said award was appealable and not revisable as per the provision of section 37(1)(b) of the Act. Hence, he submits that the said revision, which was allowed by this Court, was not maintainable in view of specific provision of the Act and thus was fit to be dismissed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party submits that the merit of the order passed in Misc. Case No. 15 of 2005 case was not challenged nor was interfered with by the revisional court, rather the only question before the Court was the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Subordinate Judge-I, Begusarai to consider such application as territorial jurisdiction for the said case was at Patna. He further states that this Court, vide the aforesaid order dated 24.07.2009, has specifically mentioned that only the question of jurisdiction has been decided without going into the merit of the respective claims of the parties and the petitioner will be at liberty to file a proper case/petition before a 3 court of competent territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction within one month from that day and the court before which the case would be filed, will consider the matter on its own merits and will decide in accordance with law. He also avers that in compliance of the said order of this Court the petitioner has already filed Misc. Case No. 36 of 2009 under section 34 of the Act for the same relief before the learned Subordinate Judge-I, Patna, who had the territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction for hearing the matter. Hence, he submits that there is no occasion for reviewing the said order of this Court. 7. Although learned counsel for the petitioner submits that specific provision of law shows that section 5 of the Limitation Act would not be applicable in the instant case and the application filed under section 34 of the Act before the learned Subordinate-I, Patna was beyond the prescribed period and that the petitioner was quite justified in challenging the said order of this Court. However, the petitioner has not claimed that the said order of this Court was bad on merits or the Court at Begusarai had the jurisdiction to hear Misc. Case No.15 of 2005. 8. After considering the averments made by learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record, including the impugned order, it is quite apparent that the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Begusarai in Misc. Case No. 15 of 2005 was not considered by this Court on merits and only the question of jurisdiction of that Court was considered and the plaintiff-opposite party-petitioner was permitted to file a fresh 4 application under section 34 of the Act before a court of competent territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction and the said order has also been complied by the petitioner, who has filed an application bearing Misc. Case No. 36 of 2009 under the provision of section 34 of the Act, which is pending at Patna before a court of competent jurisdiction, which will decide it on its own merit. 9. Furthermore, the petitioner should not have felt aggrieved as special privilege had been given to him by this Court vide order dated 24.07.2009 for filing an application under section 34 of the Act before a court of proper pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction, which is clearly irrespective of any bar under any provision of law. Furthermore, this Court by the said order has specifically directed the court before which the miscellaneous case was subsequently filed to consider the matter on merits and decide it in accordance with law. Hence, the apprehension of the petitioner is absolutely unfounded. 10. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any error apparent on face of the record nor does it find any fresh material to take a different view. Accordingly, this civil review petition is dismissed. MPS/ ( S.N. Hussain, J. )