JUDGMENT 1. - This is revision under section 115 of. the Code of Civil Porcedure against the judgment and order of the District Judge, Jaipur-City, Jaipur dated 5.7.1990 directing the Indian Council of Arbitration, New Delhi to give the award within four month of the date of making reference and file the same in the Court at Jaipur. 2. The District Judge took the view that the dispute in between the parties lay within its jurisdiction and as the same was pending disposal before the Indian Council of Arbitration, New Delhi, the Court had jurisdiction to give a direction to the above effect. 3. The petitioner-State 'trading Corporation of India limited was a Government of India undertaking registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. It has branches at several places through out the country and abroad. The respondent-M/s Laxmi Oil and Extractions Mills Ltd. entered into an agreement for Refining (bulk) and Refining-cum-tinning for SOB and Rs. on 30th April, 1984. The agreement was signed at New Delhi for entrustment to the non-petitioner for refining and tinning by it of the edible oils imported by the petitioner. 4. In pursuance of the agreement mentioned above, various quantities of oils were entrusted to the non-petitioner. The entrustment took place at New Delhi and trust receipts were obtained by the petitioner. One of the trust receipts is quoted below: "We have received the above said oil in trust on your account and undertake to hold the oil at whatever stage of refining and/or tin..ing it may be as your trustees." 5. In pursuance of the said agreement dated 30th April, 1984, the non-petitioner lifted the repseed oil and soyabean oil, but did not deliver the entire quantity after double refining and tinning the same within the period stipulated. The non-petitioner hypothicated the oil entrusted to the Punjab and Sindh Bank, Jaipur in contravention of the terms of the agreement. The oil was misappropriated as is the case of the petitioner. The non-petitioner did not deliver 618.335 M.Ts of edible repseed oil and soyabean oil either refined or crude to the petitioner imspitc of the several demands. 6. The petitioner submitted an application under section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act in the High Court at Delhi praying that the non-petitioner be directed to file the arbitration agreement in Court. The non-petitioner did not deliver 618.335 M.Ts of edible repseed oil and soyabean oil either refined or crude to the petitioner imspitc of the several demands. 6. The petitioner submitted an application under section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act in the High Court at Delhi praying that the non-petitioner be directed to file the arbitration agreement in Court. Clause 23 of the agreement was as under: "All disputes or differences whatsoever arising at any time between STC and the refiner out of or relating construction meaning, operation of effect of this agreement or the several matters specified therein breach thereof shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the Rules of arbitration of the Indian Council of Arbitration at New Delhi and the award in pursuance thereof shall be final and binding on the parties. The place of arbitration shall be New Delhi and the Arbitrator(s) shall give a reasoned award." 7. The non-petitioner also filed an application under section 20 of the Indian Arbtration Act. 8. By the order under challenge the learned District Judge found that the dispute was arbitrable, but he dircted that the award was to be filed in the Court at Jaipur. It is against this part of the order of the District Judge, the present revision has been filed. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The contention of the petitioner's counsel is that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to direct the Indian Council of Arbitration, New Delhi to file the award at Jaipur. Sub-section (4) of Section-20 of the Indian Arbitration Act on which reliance had been placed by the petitioner's counsel runs as under: "Sub-section(4) of Section-20 Where no sufficient cause is shown, the Court shall order the agreement to be filed, and shall make an order of reference to the arbitrator appointed by the parties, whether in the agreement or otherwise, or, where the parties cannot agree upon an arbitrator to an arbitrator appointed by the Court." 10. Counsel for the petitioner urged that the dispute has already been referred to the Indian Council of Arbitration and, as such, the proceedings under section-20 of the Indian Arbitration Act are not maintainable. 11. 1 have been shown a copy of the Award given by the Indian Council of Arbitration, New Delhi consisting of Mr. Justice E.S.Venkataramiah, H.L.Anand and K.C.Diwan. Counsel for the petitioner urged that the dispute has already been referred to the Indian Council of Arbitration and, as such, the proceedings under section-20 of the Indian Arbitration Act are not maintainable. 11. 1 have been shown a copy of the Award given by the Indian Council of Arbitration, New Delhi consisting of Mr. Justice E.S.Venkataramiah, H.L.Anand and K.C.Diwan. The Indian Council of Arbitration has found that the claimant-State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. was entitled to an award in its favour in the sum of, Rs. .1,38,10,807.53. However, I am not concerned with the correctness of the award of the Indian Council of Arbitration. 12. Before me the short controversy argued was that the District Judge could not direct the Indian Council of Arbitration, New Delhi to file the award in the Court. That appears to be tenable. The direction to that effect given is liable to be quashed. 13. Hence, I allow the revision, set-aside the order of the District Judge in so far in directs the Indian Council of Arbitration, New Delhi to file the award at Jaipur in the Court of District Judge.Revision Allowed : Order of District Judge partly set aside. *******