S. Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) The petitioners are legal heirs and successors of late Amrendra Kumar who was a qualified Engineer and Contractor. Late Amrendra Kumar was awarded work for construction of Neem Bani No. 1 Scheme (Earthen Dam) within Raneshwar Block, Dumka. After the negotiation the work was awarded @ 9% higher to the estimated cost and accordingly, agreement No. 37 F2 was entered between the parties. Late Amrendra Kumar started work on 16.02.1986 which was to be completed by 15.08.1986 however, certain additional work was executed by the contractor and subsequently, a dispute for payment of Rs. 2,39,571.36 arose. Late Amrendra Kumar made representation to the authorities and the Deputy Secretary, Minor Irrigation, Bihar directed the Superintending Engineer to furnish response to the representation of late Amrendra Kumar. Several communications were exchanged, in the meantime, between late Amrendra Kumar and different authorities of the Government of Bihar for payment of dues with interest @ 16% per annum which was calculated at Rs. 23,56,386/ - till 16.01.2002. Earlier, notice dated 29.03.1988 under Sec. 80 C.P.C. was issued to the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka and other authorities. Finally, late Amrendra Kumar filed Arbitration Suit No. 27 of 2002 in the Court of Sub -Judge - II, Dumka however, the suit was dismissed vide order dated 16.09.2008 holding that the trial court had no power to appoint Arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Thereafter, late Amrendra Kumar approached this Court in Arbitration Case No. 4 of 2009 in which vide order dated 17.02.2010, Superintending Engineer was appointed as Arbitrator. The learned Arbitrator vide award dated 22.12.2010 rejected the claim, against which an application under Sec. 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was filed for setting -aside award dated 22.12.2010. The said application was registered as Title (Arbitration) Suit No. 28 of 2011. During the pendency of the said suit late Amrendra Kumar died and thereafter, the present petitioners were substituted in his place. The respondents -defendants appeared and filed written statement resisting the suit on several grounds. Vide order dated 13.11.2014, the trial court allowed application dated 11.04.2014 filed by the defendants under Order VII Rule 11 read with Sec. 151 C.P.C. holding that the application was filed before the wrong forum and it should have been filed before the Court of Principal District Judge or the High Court. The trial court ordered return of the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation before the competent court as defined under Sec. 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) Mr. Sudarshan Srivastava, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the objection under Sec. 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 registered as Title (Arbitration) Suit No. 28 of 2011 has to be tried by the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, which is the Court of Senior Civil Judge in the district. It is further submitted that the jurisdiction of the Senior Civil Judge to entertain objection under Sec. 34 of the 1996 Act is not barred by any law and therefore, rejection of Title (Arbitration) Suit No. 28 of 2011 is not sustainable in law.
(3.) Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Dubey, the learned Sr. S.C. I referring to the judgment in "State of Maharashtra v/s. Atlanta Limited", (2014) 11 SCC 619 submits that application under Sec. 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be instituted only before the "Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction" which is the Court of Principal District Judge.;