THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5245 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by order, dated 02.08.2010 passed by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Warangal, in Memo in S.R.No.1264 of 2010 in E.P.No.181 of 2005. The respondent herein has filed aforesaid E.P. to execute an arbitral award passed under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Arbitration Act’). In the aforesaid E.P., the respondent herein has filed Memo in S.R.No.1264 of 2010, to which, the petitioner herein filed counter-affidavit and raised an objection that the Court, in which the E.P. was numbered, is not having jurisdiction to entertain that E.P. The Court below by the impugned order disagreed with such objection of the petitioner and rejected the Memo filed by the respondent. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition. In this Civil Revision Petition, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as much as the award passed under the Arbitration Act is to be enforced under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as per Section 36 of the Arbitration Act, the application for enforcement is to be filed before the Court having pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to entertain such application. He has relied on the judgment in the case of M/s.BHOOMATHA PARA BOILED RICE AND OIL MILL v. M/s.MAHESHWARI TRADING COMPANY AND OTHERS[1], in which, the Division Bench of this Court while interpreting the provisions of CPC as well as the Arbitration Act, has held that the word ‘Court’ means not only the Court as defined under Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration Act but also all the Courts subject to territorial and pecuniary jurisdictional limits. It has further held that if an arbitral award is passed, an application for enforcement by way of E.P. need not always be filed under Section 36 of the Arbitration Act before the District Court. It has also held that depending on the value of the award, it can also be filed before the civil Courts having pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that under Section 36 read with Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration Act, the E.P. is maintainable before the District Court. He has relied on the judgment in the case of MANAGING DIRECTOR, SUNDARAM FINANCE LIMITED, MADRAS v. G.S.NANDAKUMAR[2], in which, the learned Single Judge of this Court while interpreting Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration Act has held that in Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, the word used is ‘Court’ referable to Court as defined in Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration Act and it can be safely concluded that the Court referred in Section 9 is District Court but not any other Court having jurisdiction. He also relied on the judgment in the case of ANKATI SATYAMAIAH v. SALLANGULA LALAIAH AND ANOTHER[3], in which, the learned Single Judge of this Court has held that the arbitral award passed under the Arbitration Act can be executed before the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction which means only the District Court within whose jurisdiction the party resides or cause of action in whole or in part arises. In this case, it is to be seen that at the first instance, the respondent herein has filed E.P. in Junior Civil Judge’s Court, which in turn, returned the same. Thereafter, it was entertained by the Principal District Judge’s Court. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s.BHOOMATHA PARA BOILED RICE AND OIL MILL (1 supra) that would not render any assistance in support of his argument that the application filed for enforcement of arbitral award is not maintained before the District Court. In the above referred to judgment, the Division Bench of this Court never said that the Principal District Court is not having jurisdiction to entertain the application for enforcement of award passed under the Arbitration Act. In the said judgment, it is interpreted that the Court means not only the Court as defined under Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration Act but also all the Courts subject to territorial and pecuniary jurisdictional limits. This does not mean that the arbitral award cannot be enforced before the District Court. In MANAGING DIRECTOR, SUNDARAM FINANCE LIMITED, MADRAS (2 supra), it is clearly held by the learned Single Judge of this Court that the Principal District Court is the Court which is referable to the Court as defined in Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration Act, as such, E.P. can be maintained by such Court for enforcement of the award passed under the provisions of the Arbitration Act. For the aforesaid reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 11th JULY, 2011. kvni [1] AIR 2010 ANDHRA PRADESH 137 [2] 2001(4) ALT 383 [3] 2003(3) ALT 193