JUDGMENT Khundkar, J. - The facts out of which this application arises are shortly stated as follow:-- One Mr. J.M. Chowdhury, a solicitor, was on the 9th March, 1942, appointed an arbitrator for the purpose inter alia of effecting a partition certain properties. This arbitration was under an agreement arrived at between the parties to the dispute without the intervention of the Court. Subsequently on the 27th June, 1944 the present Petitioner applied under sec. 11 of the Indian Arbitration Act to the Subordinate Judge of the first Court at Dacca for the removal of the arbitrator, but the application was not proceeded with, and was eventually dismissed for non-prosecution on the 28th October, 1944. Thereafter on the 21st November, 1945, the present Petitioner presented another application for the removal of this arbitrator in the same Court. Steps were taken for the purpose of effecting service of a notice of the making of this application upon the arbitrator, but before the notice could be properly served upon him he made an award which was filed in this Court on the 23rd January, 1946. Notice of the filing the award under the Rules of this Court was taken out on the 2nd March, 1946. The Petitioner in this application is asking not that the award made by the arbitrator be set aside, but that it be declared to be a nullity, and a distinction is sought to be made between an application under sec. 30 of the Indian Arbitration Act and an application of another kind for which, in my opinion, no provision has been made in the Act. The distinction is sought to be drawn for the purpose of saving limitation; but in the view I take, the Court is not called upon to go into this matter at all, because the award itself is before me for the passing of a judgment upon it, and I do not think that I have jurisdiction to pronounce such judgment at all. Under sec. 31 of the Act an award may be filed in any Court having jurisdiction in the matter to which the reference relates. It is said that this Court has jurisdiction by reason of the fact that some of the properties which are the subject-matter of the dispute are situated within the local limits of the jurisdiction of this Court. 31 of the Act an award may be filed in any Court having jurisdiction in the matter to which the reference relates. It is said that this Court has jurisdiction by reason of the fact that some of the properties which are the subject-matter of the dispute are situated within the local limits of the jurisdiction of this Court. Be that as it may, it is very clear that this is not the Court in which the present award should have been filed. This follows from the terms of sub-sec. (4) of sec. 31 which is as follows:-- Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force, where in any reference any application under this Act has been made in a Court competent to entertain it, that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over the arbitration proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that reference and the arbitration proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. 2. As has already been stated, in the present arbitration proceedings no less than two applications have been presented under the Act to the Court of the First Subordinate Judge at Dacca, being applications under sec. 11 for the removal of the arbitrator. The taking of such a step would operate to deprive any Court of jurisdiction over the arbitration proceedings other than the Court of the First Subordinate Judge at Dacca. The award can be filed only in that Court and all other proceedings consequent thereon can be entertained by that Court alone. 3. On behalf of Respondent it has been contended that the provisions of sub-sec. (4) of sec. 31 do not apply because the arbitrator had no notice of the making of the application of the 6th December, 1945, for his removal. There is no substance whatever in such a contention, because the operation of sub-sec. (7) is not limited to cases in which notice of any kind has in fact been served upon the arbitrator, or indeed upon any party at all. This Court has no jurisdiction to pass judgment upon the award which must accordingly be returned for filing in the proper Court. It follows also that the application for declaring the award a nullity whatever that may mean, cannot be entertained by this Court. 4. I am informed that the arbitrator has died. This Court has no jurisdiction to pass judgment upon the award which must accordingly be returned for filing in the proper Court. It follows also that the application for declaring the award a nullity whatever that may mean, cannot be entertained by this Court. 4. I am informed that the arbitrator has died. For the ends of justice it is desirable that a direction should be made by me as to the person through whom this award is to be filed in the Court of the First Subordinate Judge at Dacca. The award having been already filed here I direct the Registrar of this Court to transmit it to the Court of the First Subordinate Judge at Dacca at the cost of the clients of Mr. N.L. Saha, Solicitor, to be filed in that Court. There will be no order as to the costs of the applications.