Arvind Kumar Mishra, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant has raised various contentions and claimed that the appellant approached the executing court at District Jalaun at Orai and filed Application/Objection 3 Ka under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which was registered as Miscellaneous Application No.280 of 2014, the court concerned wrongfully and illegally rejected the application 3 Ka on ground of maintainability, vide its order dated 19.03.2018, that the court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the application, which is subject of challenge in this First Appeal From Order. He further submitted that the proper forum where the appellant could have agitated his grievance was the court of District Judge, Jalaun at Orai because the enforceability clause as contained in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 prescribes the forum/court which can be appreciated by the concerned one. It means the court, which is very much concerned with the subject matter of the property in question will be the appropriate forum by virtue of the provisions contained under the Civil Procedure Code. Various principles of Civil Procedure Code are very much attracted and that way, jurisdiction ought to have been exercised in the case of the appellant, which was wrongly refused by the District Judge.
(3.) Considered the contention so raised and perused the impugned order dated 19.03.2018 passed by the District Judge Jalaun at Orai, whereby he has contemplated about the relief sought by way of moving Application 3 Ka under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Reconciliation Act, 1996 and opined that the original award was passed at Mumbai, therefore, the jurisdiction to entertain such application 3Ka is vested in the proper court at Mumbai.;