Arb.A. 5/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.D. AGARWAL This appeal under Section 37(1)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation A ct, 1996 has been filed by the appellant assailing the order dated 30.07.2010, p assed by the learned Addl. District Judge (FTC), Cachar, Silchar, in Misc. Arbit ration Case No. 27/2010. Heard Mr. S.S.Dey, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. I. H ussain, learned CGC, appearing for the respondents. Shri Dey, learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that when t he appellant came to know about the termination of the contract work vide order dated 23.11.2009 and subsequent issuance of fresh tender for the same work (unco mpleted portion) on 29.04.2010, he requested the respondents to refer the matter for arbitration. However, the respondents did not act upon the notice-dated 19. 06.2010. Apprehending that the tender will be opened without referring the matte r for arbitration, the appellant filed an application under Section 9 of the Arb itration law in the court of the learned District Judge, Cachar, Silchar, on 21. 06.2010. The said application was ultimately transferred to the court of the lea rned Addl. District Judge, Silchar, who did not pass any interim order on 30.07. 3010. The learned senior counsel for the appellant also submitted that despite making a request for fixing a short date, the learned Addl. District Judge fixe d the case nearly after seven weeks thereby frustrating the purpose of Section 9 of the Act. During the course of hearing, Shri Dey, learned senior counsel for the appellant also submitted that since the respondents decided to open the tender during the pendency of application under section 9 of the Act, the appellant was compelle d to approach this Court. Having regard to all the aspects of the matter, this c ourt passed an interim order on 11.08.2010 restraining the respondents not to op en the tender until further order from this court. In totality, the only grievance of the appellant is that the learned District Co urt may be directed to decide the arbitration application filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration Law expeditiously and till then the tender may not be allowed to open. At the same time, it was also contended that in view of the definition of court under Section 2(1)(e) of the Act, the court referred under Section 9 would mean the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district and as such, the learned Addl. District Judge has no jurisdiction to decide the app lication. I find force in the submission of the learned senior counsel for the appellant. His submission is fortified by the decision of this court, rendered in Bosabari Tea Estate Private Ltd. Vs. Auro Tea Co. Ltd., reported in 1999(3) GLJ 137, wher ein this court has held that the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) has no j urisdiction to pass any order under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act. In my cons idered opinion, the ratio laid down in the said case is equally applicable to th e court of learned Addl. District Judge. Hence, it is ordered that the Misc. (Ar bitration) Case No. 27 of 2010 is withdrawn from the court of the learned Addl. District Judge (FTC), Silchar and the same is transferred to the learned Distric t Judge, Silchar for adjudication. The case is transferred not only on the basis of the law laid down by this court as referred hereinabove but also in view of long date given by the learned Addl. District Judge despite prayer for early hea ring of the application. The learned District Judge, Cachar, Silchar is directed to dispose of the applic ation within a period of four weeks from the date of appearance of both the part ies. The parties are directed to appear in the court of learned District Judge o n 14.03.2011 and produce a copy of this order/ judgment. Shri I. Hussain, the learned CGC submitted that the affidavit-in-opposition file d on behalf of the Union of India and its officers in this court on 25.01.2011 m ay be treated as written objection of the opposite parties in the Misc. (Arbitra tion) Case. A copy of the said affidavit has already been supplied to the petiti oners/ appellants. However, the learned CGC is directed to file a copy of the af fidavit in opposition in the court of the learned District Judge, Silchar on 14. 03.2011 and then the case may be decided on the basis of the pleadings. The appe llants/ petitioners shall also be at liberty to file their reply, if so advised, on the same day. With the aforesaid directions and observations, this appeal stands disposed of. The interim order passed by this court on 11. 08.2010 shall continue till 18.04. 2011 or till final order passed by the leaned District Judge, whichever is earli er.