JUDGMENT B. P. Jha, J This civil revision petition is against an order dated 23rd Aug., 1985. By the impugned order, the Court directed the award to be returned to the Arbitrator for registration. The validity of this order is being challenged before this Court. In this connection, learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on the decisions in Rikhab Dass v. Ballabhdas and others ( AIR 1962 SC 551 ), and in M/s. Pradip Trading Co. v. The State of Bihar (AIR 1974 Pat. 31). In these decisions, it has been held that an award cannot be returned for registration either under s. 16 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') or under s. 151 of the CPC (herein after referred to as 'the Code'). I quite agree that the principle has been correctly laid down in these cases. So far as the present case is concerned, the Court has not passed any order either under s. 16 of the Act or under s. 151 of the Code. Therefore, these two cases do not apply to the facts of this case. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party relied on the decisions in Balu Mal v. J.P. Chandani & others ( AIR 1977 Raj. 14 ), and in Puthiyapurayil Pocker v. V. Khalid ( AIR 1974 Ker. 121 ). These decisions have laid down that an award can be returned for registration. The Rajasthan High Court is of opinion that a document filed by the parties can be returned under O. 13, r. 9 of the Code. In this connection, ld. Counsel has relied on s. 41 of the Act. Sec. 41 provides that the provisions of CPC will apply to an arbitration proceeding. It is for this reason that the Rejasthan High Court was of opinion that the provisions of O. 13, r. 9 of the Code would apply to an arbitration proceeding. Under the provisions of O. 13, R. 9 if an award has been filed by an arbitrator, it can be returned for registration. The Supreme Court and the Patna High Court in the decisions, referred to above, did not consider about the applicability of O. 13, r. 9 of the Code. As such, if such an order is not affirmed, then hundreds of arbitration proceeding will become non est on account of non-registration of the award. The Supreme Court and the Patna High Court in the decisions, referred to above, did not consider about the applicability of O. 13, r. 9 of the Code. As such, if such an order is not affirmed, then hundreds of arbitration proceeding will become non est on account of non-registration of the award. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the provisions of O. 13, r. 9 of the Code will not apply for the purpose of registration. In other words, he means to say that O. 13, r. 9 of the Code will not apply for curing a defect in the document. In my opinion, simply because a document is to be registered and no mistake in the document is to be removed, it does not mean that it should not be returned. The document will remain in the custody of the arbitrator for the purpose of registration. It is the discretion of the Court to allow a document to be returned under O. 13, r. 9 of the Code, and it does not touch the jurisdiction of the Court, and, as such, the civil revision petition is not maintainable. I direct the Court below to allow the arbitrator to file a certified copy of the award and thereafter he is directed to take back the award for registration. The points raised in the petition may be agitated by the ld. Counsel for the petitioner at the time of the argument of the suit in the Court below. In the result, the petition is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs.