Judgment B.P.Jha, J. 1. This civil revision petition is against an order dated 23rd August, 1985. 2. 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. 3. In this connection, learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision in Rikhabdass V/s. Hallabbde and Ors. -- and in Pradip Trading Co. V/s. The State of Bihar -- . In these decisions, it has been held that an award cannot be returned for registration either under Sec.16 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) or under Sec.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code). I quite agree that the principle has been correctly laid down in these cases, 4. So far as the present case is concerned, the court has not passed any order either under Sec.16 of the Actor under Sec.151 of the Code. Therefore, these two cases do not apply to the facts of this case. 5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the opposite party relies on the decisions in Balu Mal V/s. J. P. Chandani and Ors. -- and in Puthiyapurayil Packer V/s. N. Khalid -- . 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 Order 13, Rule 9 of the Code. 6. In this connection, learned Counsel has relied on Sec. 41 of the Act. Section 41 provides that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply to an arbitration proceeding. It is for this reason that the Rajasthan High Court was of opinion that the provisions of Order 13, Rule 9 of the Code would apply to an arbitration proceeding. Under the provisions of Order 13, Rule 9, if an award has been filed by an arbitrator, it can be returned for registration. 7. The Supreme Court and the Patna High Court in the decision, referred to above, did not consider that the applicability of Order 13 Rule 9 of the Code. As such, if such an order is not affirmed, then hundreds of arbitration proceedings will become non-est on account of non-registration of the award. 8. 7. The Supreme Court and the Patna High Court in the decision, referred to above, did not consider that the applicability of Order 13 Rule 9 of the Code. As such, if such an order is not affirmed, then hundreds of arbitration proceedings will become non-est on account of non-registration of the award. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the provisions of Order 13, Rule 9 of the Code will Act apply for the purpose of registration. In other words, he means to say that Order 13, Rule 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, 9. It is the discretion of the Court to allow a document to be returned under Order 13, rule 2 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. 10. The points raised in the petition may be agitated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner at the time of the argument of the suit in the court below. 11. In the result, the petition is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs.