ORDER A. G. Qureshi, J. 1. This case has been placed before this Bench on the orders of Honourable the Chief Justice for deciding the question of Jurisdiction as referred to by the learned Single Judge of this Court. 2. Facts of this case may be mentioned in brief:- The petitioner M/s. Amolik Enterprises having its office at Indore, has filed a revision petition under section 19 of the M. P. Madhyastham Adhiniyam, 1983, before this Court. The revision was registered in Indore Bench of this Court as 201/88. The revision was admitted on 16-1-1989 and notices were issued to the non-applicants. In response to the Notice, Respondent No. 1 submitted a preliminary objection before the Single Bench challenging the jurisdiction of the Indore bench to hear the matter. Learned Single Judge after considering the respective contention of the parties, directed that the matter be placed before Honourable the Chief Justice for constitution of a proper Bench for deciding the question relating to jurisdiction of this Bench in respect of a dispute under the provisions of M. P. Madhyastham Adhiniyam, 1983. 3. Before considering the respective arguments of the parties, it is necessary to look into the dispute which led to the reference to the Arbitration Tribunal. The petitioner and Respondent No. 1 M. P. Housing Board had entered into an agreement on 27-2-1985 for the construction of roads and culverts in the C.A.T. project at Sukhniwas, Indore. The contract was however rescinded by a letter dated 24-3-1986 in purported exercise of the respondents' power under clause 3(c) of the agreement on account of the alleged failure of the petitioner to complete the work within the extended time. A dispute therefore, arose between the parties and consequently the petitioner filed a claim on 22-4-1986 before the Arbitration Tribunal constituted under section 3 of the M. P. Madhyastham Adhiniyam, 1983, (hereinafter called the Adhiniyam). The tribunal partly allowed the claim of the petitioner by its award dated ,23-5-1988. The petitioner aggrieved by the award filed the revision in question under section 19 of the Adhiniyam against the award, in respect of the rejection of his claim. The tribunal partly allowed the claim of the petitioner by its award dated ,23-5-1988. The petitioner aggrieved by the award filed the revision in question under section 19 of the Adhiniyam against the award, in respect of the rejection of his claim. When after the admission of the revision, the Respondent No. 1, put in its appearance through its counsel Shri Joshi, a preliminary objection, through I.A. No. 122/89 was raised before the court to the effect that the Indore Bench has no jurisdiction to hear this matter, in view of section 18 of the Adhiniyam. The learned Single Judge after hearing both the parties vide order dated 12-9-1989, requested Hon'ble the Chief Justice to constitute a Special Bench for examining the question of jurisdiction. Hence this reference. 3-A. Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Shekhar Bhargava, submits that the matter has already been concluded by the Full Bench of this court, wherein it has been held, that if a cause of action or a part of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of any Bench of M. P. High Court, in accordance with the Presidential Order dated 28-10-1968, then such Bench shall have the jurisdiction to hear such matter. In the instant case, undisputedly, the dispute leading to the proceedings before the Arbitration Tribunal arose at Indore, and therefore, this court has jurisdiction to decide the revision petition. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent Shri Joshi has laid much emphasis on the provisions contained in section 18 of the Adhiniyam, which provide that the award shall have force of a decree of a District Court. 4. In view of the respective arguments of the learned counsel, let us first look at the Presidential Notification. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent Shri Joshi has laid much emphasis on the provisions contained in section 18 of the Adhiniyam, which provide that the award shall have force of a decree of a District Court. 4. In view of the respective arguments of the learned counsel, let us first look at the Presidential Notification. The Presidential Notification dated 26-11-1968 relevant for our purpose is as under: - "In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 51 of the State Reorganisation Act, 1956 (37 of 1956), I, Zakir Hussain, President of India, after consultation with the Governor of Madhya Pradesh and the Chief Justice of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh hereby establish a permanent Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore and further direct that such Judges of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, being not less than four in number as the Chief Justice may from time to time nominate, shall sit at Indore in order to exercise the jurisdiction and powers for the time being vested in that High Court in respect of case arising in the revenue districts of Indore, Ujjain, Dewas, Dhar, Jhabua, Ratlam, Mandsaur, West Nimar (Khargone), Shajapur and Rajgarh: Provided that the Chief Justice may for special reasons order that any case or class of cases arising in any such district shall be heard at Jabalpur." In view of the aforesaid notification the Indore Bench has jurisdiction in respect of cases arising on the revenue districts of Indore, Ujjain, Dewas, Dhar, Jhabua, Ratlam, Mandsaur, West Nimar (Khargone), Shajapur and Rajgarh. A Full Bench of this Court, at Gwalior has occasion to consider the accrual of the cause of action in the districts within the respective jurisdiction of the different benches. In the case of K. P. Govil v. J. H. K. V., 1987 MPLJ 396 = 1987 JLJ 341 , wherein, it has been held that the expression 'in respect of cases arising in the revenue districts of Gwalior, Shivpuri, Datia, Guna, Vidisha (Bhilsa) Bhind and Morena' means the place or. places within the specified revenue districts where the whole or a part of cause of action arises. places within the specified revenue districts where the whole or a part of cause of action arises. Therefore, if a cause of action arose wholly or in part at a place or places within the specified revenue district under the Gwalior Bench, the Gwalior Bench will have the jurisdiction to hear such cases. The Full Bench while interpreting the expression 'cause of action' has followed the Supreme Court's dictum in the case of Nasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, AIR 1976 SC 331 . 5. As such the learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 has rightly not controverted this fact that on the basis of the accrual of the cause of action, this Bench has jurisdiction to hear the revision. However, the grievance of Shri Joshi, learned counsel for respondent is that in view of section 18 of the Adhiniyam, the award of Arbitration Tribunal has to be treated as a decree of the District Court, and a revision against the decree of the District Court at Bhopal would lie to the Jabalpur Bench, and not to the Indore Bench. In our opinion, this argument advanced by the learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 is without any merit. It is true that a legal fiction has been created for the execution of the award, treating it as a decree of the District Court; but by no stretch of imagination, the award passed by the arbitration tribunal, which has jurisdiction over the whole State of M. P. may be treated as a decree of the District Court of Bhopal for all the purposes. Undisputedly, the arbitration tribunal does not hear the cases arising out of the district of Bhopal only, but 'it hears cases arising out of all the districts in the State of M.P. and in the instant case, the tribunal has passed an award in respect of the case arising out of a dispute in the Indore District. Now, the scope and ambit of the Adhiniyam, which reads as under:- "Section 18. Now, the scope and ambit of the Adhiniyam, which reads as under:- "Section 18. An award, including on 'interim' award as confirmed, rescinded or varied by an order in revision if any made under this Act, shall be deemed to be decree within the meaning of section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (No. 5 of 1908) of the principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction within the local limits whereof the award or the interim award has been made and it shall be executable accordingly." 6. The language of the section 18 of the Adhiniyam itself in unequivocal terms says that the award shall be deemed to be a decree within the meaning of section 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, of the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction within the local limits of which the award has been made; and it shall be executable accordingly. As such, for the purposes of the execution of the award, a legal fiction is created by the Adhiniyam to treat it as a decree of the Principal Court of original jurisdiction within the local limits of which the award or interim award has been made. As such, the intention of the Legislature, when an award is passed by the Arbitration Tribunal, it has to be executed at a place where the award or the interim award as the case may be is given. Now the Arbitration Tribunal can hold its sitting at Indore, Gwalior, or any other place and pass an award at that place. In such a case, for the purposes of execution of the. award, the award shall be treated as a decree of the Principal Civil Court, within the local limits of which the award has been passed. Thus, the legal fiction is enacted only for the purpose of the execution of the award, as is manifest from section 18 of the Adhiniyam itself. It in no way takes away the jurisdiction of the different Benches of the High Court which they are empowered to exercise under the Presidential Notification wherein it has been clearly provided that if a cause of action arises within the districts enumerated in the Presidential Order for the exercise of jurisdiction of each Bench, then such Bench shall hear the cases arising from such districts. 7. 7. As such, we are of the opinion that the Indore Bench has the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the revision against the arbitration awards in those cases, where the cause of action or a part of the cause of action has arisen within the districts which have been enumerated for, the purpose of jurisdiction of the Indore Bench, in the Presidential Order dated 28-11-1968. 8. Now, the case be placed before the learned Single Judge for deciding the revision on merits.