MCC 957/2010 CLMA 9460/2010 IN AO 744/2006 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. The copy of the recall application has been served on the opposite party. Consequently, the defect, as pointed out, has been removed by the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant. Heard the learned counsel for the parties on delay condonation application. Cause shown is sufficient. The delay condonation application is allowed. The delay in filing the recall application is condoned. This appeal was filed against an interim order passed by the Arbitrator under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. During the pendency of the appeal, the Arbitrator gave an award and consequently, this appeal was rendered infructuous and was rightly dismissed on 7th September, 2010. A recall application has been moved by the appellant for recall of the order dated 7th September, 2010 contending that against the order, the opposite party has filed the objection under Section 34 of the Act before the District Judge, Bageshwar. The learned counsel submitted that in the present appeal filed before this Court, the appellant had also questioned the jurisdiction of the District Judge, Bageshwar, which could not be decided since the appeal was rendered infructuous. In my view, the question of jurisdiction of the District Judge, Bageshwar, can always be raised by the appellant before the District Judge itself where the matter is pending consideration and consequently, it is not open to the appellant to file a recall application on this ground itself. The recall application is consequently dismissed with the direction that it is open to the appellant to take such a ground before the District Judge in proceedings under Section 34 of the Act. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) 19-02-2011 SP