Jagat Narayan, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision application by one Kalooram against an appellate order of the District Judge, Jodhpur, setting aside an order of the Civil Judge, Jaisalmer dated 19. 11. 57. By that order the learned Civil Judge held that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed by the respondents under sec. 17 of the Arbitration Act for passing a judgment in terms of an award.
(2.) THE contention of Kalooram was that the valuation of the subject matter of the reference was above Rs. 10,000/ -. This contention was upheld by Civil Judge on the following valuation: - (1) Matter relating to property Value mortgaged for Rs. 6,000/- Rs. 6,000/- (2) THE promissory note for Rs. 3,000/-the subject matter of a pending suit for Rs. 3630/- Rs. 3630/- (3) THE claim as regards mortgaged house for Rs. 1000/- Rs. 1000/- (4) Other reliefs regarding right Unassessed to keep in or take away goods by the in Kotha by Kalooram. applicant. Rs. 10,630/- Apart from that he held that Kalooram had stated on oath that the value of the Kotha in questions was Rs. 1100/- and that this fact has not been rebutted. On these grounds he came to the finding that the valuation was above Rs. 10,000/- and ordered the plaint to be returned for presentation to proper court. Against that order the respondents filed an appeal to the court of District Judge who allowed it on two grounds. Firstly,he held on the basis of the decision in B. Upendra Nath Basu vs. B. Hetlal and others (l) that the question of jurisdiction should be decided with reference to the relief granted in the award. The second ground was that the reference only related to property worth Rs. 9,000/ -. As for the first ground the view taken by the learned District Judge is not correct. The decision in B. Upendra Nath Basu's case (supra) was not followed in Bithaldas Khanna vs. Shri Nath Das Khanna and another (2 ). The term "court" itself has been defined under sec. 2 as a "civil Court having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject matter of the reference if the same had been the subject matter of a suit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " Thus an award can be filed in a court in which a suit with respect to the disputes which form the subject matter of reference can be filed. Coming to the second ground the reference was admittedly in writing. It was for Kalooram to have got it produced or to show that it had been lost before he was entitled to give secondary evidence of the contents of it. The oral statement of Kalooram with regard to the contents of the reference is therefore not admissible. A perusal of the award however shows that out of the matters referred to the arbitrators, one was a promissory note for Rs. 3000/- dated 25. 10. 1952 bearing interest at 9 % per annum simple; another was a mortgage deed for Rs. 6,000/- dated 22. 2. 52 bearing interest at 12 % per annum. The total amount due on these two documents came to over Rs. 12,000/- in December, 1955 when the reference to arbitration was made. The dispute referred to the arbitrators was thus valued at more than Rs. 10,000/- and the Civil Judge's court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. I accordingly allow the revision application, set aside the order of the learned District Judge and restore that of the learned Civil Judge. The application shall be returned for presentation to the proper Court. In the circumstances of the case, I direct that the parties shall bear their own costs in these proceedings throughout. .;