Civil Revision No. 2291 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2291 of 2009 Date of decision: 23.07.2009 Chaudhary Prahlad Kumar ....Petitioner Versus Amar Kumar and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. John Kumar, Advocate, for Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.M. Wadehra, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This order shall dispose of C.R. No. 2270 of 2009 titled Chaudhary Prahlad Kumar Vs. Amar Kumar and another and C.R. No. 2291 of 2009 titled Chaudhary Prahlad Kumar Vs. Amar Kumar and others, as common questions of law and fact are involved. For brevity sake, facts are being taken from C.R. No. 2291 of 2009. Civil Revision No. 2291 of 2009 -2- The petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.11.2008 passed by the learned District Judge, Faridkot, which reads as under: - “In view of the reference dated 18.7.2008 made by Shri A.S. Shergill, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Malout, this case stands withdrawn from his Court and is transferred to the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Malout for expeditious disposal according to law within the time period fixed by the Hon'ble High Court, vide order dated 17.1.2008, passed in C.R. No. 263 of 2008 (copy on record). Parties to appear before the transferee Court on 01.12.2008. File be sent to the transferee Court well before the date fixed.” The plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for dissolution of partnership deed executed between the parties. On notice, the defendant/respondents appeared, and moved an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, for stay of the suit, and for referring the matter to arbitral tribunal, in view of the existence of arbitration agreement between the parties. Instead of dealing with the issue, the learned Civil Court transferred the case to the learned District Judge, by treating it to be principal Court of original jurisdiction in view of the definition of “Court” given in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Section 2(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, reads as under: - “Court” means 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 Revision No. 2291 of 2009 -3- civil court of a grade inferior to such principal Civil Court, or any Court of Small Causes;” The learned District Judge passed the impugned order. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that in view of the definition of “Court”, as given in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, it is only the learned District Judge, who could have decided the application, and it was not open to the Court to have transferred it to the civil Court, as the civil Court would have no jurisdiction being not a principal Court of civil jurisdiction. This plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner is totally mis-conceived. Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act reads as under: - “Power to refer parties to arbitration where there is an arbitration agreement (1) A judicial authority before which an action is brought in a matter which is the subject of an arbitration agreement shall, if a party so applies not later than when submitting his first statement on the substance of the dispute, refer the parties to arbitration. (2) The application referred to in sub-section (1) shall not be entertained unless it is accompanied by the original arbitration agreement or duly certified copy thereof. (3) Notwithstanding that an application has been made under sub-section (1) and that the issue is pending before the judicial authority, an arbitration nay be commenced or continued and an arbitral award made.” Reading of Section 8 would show, that the words used are Civil Revision No. 2291 of 2009 -4- “judicial authority”. The “judicial authority” would be an “authority” having judicial power to deal with any suit/proceedings brought by a party, to arbitration agreement. It has specifically been provided, that the application under Section 8 is required to be moved before the written statement is filed by the party, objecting to continuation of proceedings, meaning thereby that the application under Section 8 is to be filed in the same Court where the suit is filed. The learned District Judge was, therefore, right in sending the case back to the civil Court for adjudication of application on merits, by correctly interpreting Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. There is no merit in this revision petition, which is accordingly ordered to be dismissed, but with no order as to costs. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge July 23, 2009 R.S.