CR 308 of 2003. 26.8.2008 Present: Mr. J.S.Bhogal, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Suneet Goel, counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. AG, for the respondent. This revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner herein against the order passed by the learned District Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahar in Civil Appeal No. 01 of 2003 on 24.10.2003. The petitioner was the appellant before the learned first appellate Court who preferred an appeal against the order dated 14.5.2003 passed by learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Rampur Bushahar, whereby objections under Section 34 of the of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter referred to as ‘the Act’) filed by the respondent herein against the award were accepted and the award was set aside. The learned Sub Judge, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, allowed petition under Section 34 of the Act preferred by the respondent herein holding that the award was against law. It was accordingly set aside. In appeal which was preferred, the learned District Judge while rightly noticing that this Court in Surat Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, Latest HLJ 2003 (HP) (DB) 691, -2- Civil Reference No. 1 of 2003, decided on 26.5.2003, has held that it is the Court of the District Judge which is Court of original jurisdiction to which a petition under Section 34 of the Act can be preferred. He thereafter proceeded to dismiss the appeal. This was not a proper way of dealing with the case. In Surat Singh’s case (supra), this Court has held: “8. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, therefore, what clearly emerges is that irrespective of the valuation of the subject matter of a reference or any application filed under Part 1 of 1996 Act, including an Application filed under Section 34 of the Act, no Court other than the Court of a District Judge would have the jurisdiction to decide such a reference or such an application. In other words, therefore, the court of Senior Sub Judge would not have the jurisdiction to decide such a reference or such an application.” This being the settled position of law and having held that the Sub Judge had no inherent jurisdiction to deal with the matter, it was the bounden duty of the District Judge to have tried the petition as an original petition under Section 34 of the Act. It was not merely -3- sufficient to notice that this Court had held that the Sub Judge has no jurisdiction and then to have disposed of the appeal in the manner in which it has been done. In this view of the matter, this revision petition is allowed and the matter is remanded to the Court of learned District Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahar. He will try the objections under Section 34 of the Act as filed by the respondent herein and shall decide the matter in accordance with law. The parties are relegated to the position at the stage at which objections under Section 34 had been preferred by the respondent herein and reply thereto filed. Parties shall appear before the learned District Judge on 30.9.2008. Let the record be sent to the learned District Judge, who shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law as provided in Section 34 of the Act. The revision petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. August 26, 2008 (PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.