PRASHANTH SPINNERS LTD Vs. CHUNNILAL PRANJIVANDASS AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri. D.V. Sitharam Murthy, Counsel representing the Revision Petitioner and I.R. Joshi, Counsel representing Sri. Vijay Sen Reddy, Counsel representing the respondent.

(2.) This Revision is preferred as against an order made in E.A.No.65/2002 in O.E.P.No.26/2001 in A.T.No.10/2000-01 made by the Senior Civil Judge, Puttur on 2-7-2003. The said E.A.No.65/2002 was filed on the ground that the Senior Civil Judge, Puttur, has no jurisdiction to entertain the E.P. at all. As I can see from the impugned order several other aspects also had been discussed and when once the question of jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the E.P. is decided. I am of the considered view that the other questions which had been discussed in the impugned order would fall into total insignificance.

(3.) Sri. D.V. Sitharam Murthy, the learned Counsel representing the Revision Petitioner had drawn the attention of this Court to Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, hereinafter in short referred to as Act and had contended that Court means the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a District and at any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that the Senior Civil Judge, Puttur is the principal Court of original jurisdiction of the District and hence the E.P. should not have been entertained by the said Court. The learned counsel placed strong reliance on ANKATI SATYAMAIAH Vs. SALLANGULA LALAIAH (2003(1) ALT 193) in this regard.