WP(C) 4580/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. P.C. Deka, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. N. Deka, learne d counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Md. Aslam, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. This is an application under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of Indi a challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 18.03.08 passed by th e learned District Judge, Golaghat in Misc. Arbitration Case No. 01/06 (Annexure -VIII) and Execution Case No. 43/08 before the same Court. From the materials on record, it appears that on an earlier occasion als o the petitioner had approached this Court by filing Arbitration Appeal No. 8/06 making a grievance against the dismissal of the application filed by the petiti oner u/s. 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The application was dismissed on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction. The Arbitration Appeal No. 8/06 alongwith M.C. Case No. 1501/06 was disp osed of by this Court on 05.10.07 providing that the learned District Judge, Go laghat shall proceed with the application u/s. 34 of the Act. While doing so, th is Court set aside and quashed the order passed by the learned District Judge o n 22.03.06 u/s. 34 of the Act. Recording the submission of lack of territorial jurisdiction to entertain the application u/s. 34 of the act by the District Jud ge, Golaghat as was raised by the respondent and that the appropriate Court wou ld the learned District Judge, Kamrup, this Court in the said order observed as follows: Considering the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for both the parti es, the impugned order dated 22.03.06 passed by the learned District Judge, Gola ghat is set aside. The District Judge has to proceed with the said application u /s. 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by the appellant acco rding to law. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the District Judge, Golaghat does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the application u/s. 34 filed by the present appellant and the appropriate Civi l Court would be the District Judge, Kamrup. If that be so, liberty is granted t o the respondent to agitate this point before the District Judge, Golaghat for t aking necessary action, if required by transferring the said application to the Court of District Judge, Kamrup at Guwahati. Parties are directed to appear befo re the District Judge, Golaghat on 17.11.2007. (Emphasized) After the aforesaid order of this Court passed on 05.10.07 in the Arbitr ation Appeal, the learned District Judge, Golaghat took up the matter towards en tertaining the petition u/s. 34 of the Act. In the proceeding, the respondent No . 2 raised objection by filing an objection petition regarding lack of territori al jurisdiction of the learned District Judge, Golaghat. Mr. Sahewalla, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that the petitioner did not file any re ply against the said objection. Be that as it may, learned District Judge, Golag hat by his order dated 18.03.08 returned the petition u/s. 34 to the petitione r with a direction to submit the same before the appropriate Court at Guwahati. Thus, the objection raised by the respondent No. 2 regarding the lack of territo rial jurisdiction was sustained. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the i nstant application under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. While Mr. Sahewalla, learned Sr. counsel for the respondent No. 2 upon reference to Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 submits that the learned Dis trict Judge, Golaghat has rightly returned the plaint to file the same before th e appropriate Court at Guwhati, Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner upo n reference to Order 7 Rule 10 and 10(A) of the CPC, submits that learned Distri ct Judge, Golaghat apart from committing wrong in not following the direction of this Court, also failed to adhere to the mandate of the provisions of the said Code. It is submitted at the Bar that so far as the Arbitration proceeding or any proceeding pertaining thereto before the Court is concerned, the provisions of CPC may not be strictly applicable, but Mr. Sahewalla, learned counsel for th e respondent No. 2 referring to the decision of the Apex Court reported in (2002 ) 5 SCC 510 (ITI Ltd. vs. Siemens Public Communications Network Ltd.), submits t hat the provisions of CPC may not also be wholly inapplicable. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the par ties and have perused the materials on record. The order passed by this Court in the earlier proceeding has been noted above. In the said order passed by this C ourt, regarding lack of jurisdiction of the District Judge, Golaghat, liberty wa s granted to the respondents to agitate before the said District Judge. At the s ame time it was also provided that the learned District Judge, Golaghat would ta ke necessary action, if required, to transfer the application u/s. 34 of the Arb itration and Conciliation Act to the District Judge, Kamrup. Although Mr. Sahew alla, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that observation made by this Court was not a direction as such, but only a liberty granted to the respon dents to raise objection, I am of the considered opinion that the said observati on of this Court is unambiguous and clear enough to be considered to be a direct ion to the learned District Judge, Golaghat to transfer the application to the l earned District Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati. On a total reading of the order of this Court, I am of the considered opinion that no other interpretation is discernib le. Section 24 of the CPC deals with the transfer of application to a subord inate Court. On the other hand, Order 7 Rule 10 and 10(A) of the CPC deal with r eturn of the plaint. The learned District Judge, Golaghat passed the impugned or der dated 18.03.08 returning the petition to the petitioner to file the same be fore appropriate Court at Guwahati. If that be so, I am of the considered opinio n that the provisions of Order 7 Rule 10 and 10(A) of the CPC shall be applicabl e and not the provision of Section 24 of the CPC. A definite procedure has bee n laid down towards return of the plaint with the power of the Court to fix the date of appearance in the Court where the plaint is to be filed after its retur n. Mr. Sahewalla, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 fairly submits that s ince the provisions have been made for return of the plaint in Order 7 Rule 10 a nd 10(A) of the CPC with the provision for endorsement therein the date of its s ubmission and return, same will necessarily mean that on return, enabling th e party to file the same in a competent Court, the date of filing of the applica tion would be treated to be the same as was filed in the earlier Court. In view of the above position, it was incumbent on the part of the learn ed District Judge, Golaghat to return the petition with a notice to the petition er which in the instant case was never done. Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the p etitioner submits that the petitioner has been made to suffer due to wrong actio n or inaction on the part of the engaged counsel for which the petitioner has l odged a complaint to the Bar Council of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tri pura, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh. Without expressing any opinion on such cont ention on behalf of the petitioner, I set aside and quash the order dated 18.03 .08. In respect of remanding back the matter, it is hereby provided that the app lication filed by the petitioner shall be accepted by the learned District Judge , Kamrup taking the date of filing of the same as the date of filing the said pe tition before the learned District Judge, Golaghat. The petitioner is at liberty to get back the petition from the learned District Judge, Golaghat for filing t he same before the learned District Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati. The petitioner shal l do the same as expeditiously as possible, but at any rate, not later than 15. 12.08. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of.