Judgment :- S. S. SUBRAMANI, J. Petitioner is the respondent in O.P. No. 216 of 1997, on the file of VI Additional City Civil Court (in charge of VII Additional City Civil Court). The said petition was for appointment of an Arbitrator. 2. Petitioner-Kanagarani Durairaj entered into an agreement with the 1st respondent for construction of a hospital, wherein there is a clause stating that all disputes and differences arising out of or relating to the said agreement shall be referred to a sole Arbitrator or two Arbitrators. The agreement is dated 2-1-1996. Difference arose between the parties and the same were referred to Arbitrators, namely, Sivasubramaniam and two others. They inspected the building and made certain suggestions to the respondent. But he did not comply with same, and measured the constructed area and the additional area to be constructed area and the additional are to be constructed and gave instructions to the first respondent to complete the work by 10-3-1997. They directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 4, 75, 000/-. First respondent, even after receipt of the amount, did discharge his duty, and he left the work as it stands, and permitted the petitioner to have her own contractor for completing the work. Thereafter, first respondent, ignoring the report of Sivasubramaniam and two others, moved an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act for appointment of an arbitrator. The application was filed under the old Arbitration Act, 1940. The same was seriously opposed by the petitioner herein on the ground that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition and appoint an arbitrator in view of the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996. According to the petitioner, under Section 11 of the new Act, the burden and responsibility of Civil Courts appointing Arbitrators are taken away and are passed on to the statutory authorities named in the new Act, viz., the Chief Justice or any person or institution designed by him. In view of the said provision, an argument was taken before the civil court that the 7th Judge, City Civil Court has no jurisdiction, to deal with the matter. 3. The lower court did not consider the said request and appointed an Arbitrator. The order is challenged under Act. 227 of the Constitution. 4. Notice of motion was ordered. In view of the said provision, an argument was taken before the civil court that the 7th Judge, City Civil Court has no jurisdiction, to deal with the matter. 3. The lower court did not consider the said request and appointed an Arbitrator. The order is challenged under Act. 227 of the Constitution. 4. Notice of motion was ordered. In response to that, 1st respondent entered appearance and filed counter, wherein it is said that the Chief Justice has designed the Subordinate Courts including the Principal Civil Court and, therefore, the civil revision petition itself is liable to be dismissed summarily. It is also stated in the counter-affidavit that under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Courts have been defined as Principal City Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a District and includes the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction. It is further said that the claim in this case is below Rs. 10 lakhs and, therefore, the High Court cannot be greeted as a court having original jurisdiction. Therefore, taking into consideration the definition of 'court' as well as the so-called Scheme prepared by the High Court designating the Subordinate Courts, this court has no jurisdiction. 5. I heard learned counsel on both sides in detail. 6. The jurisdiction of the lower court is challenged on the ground that there is no notification issued by the Chief Justice of the High Court of Madras. There is a duty on the part of the first respondent to produce the same, especially when he asserts that Subordinate Courts have been authorised to or designated, by the Chief Justice to appoint Arbitrators. Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act provides for appointment of Arbitrators. Both parties agree that Section 11 of the Act applies to the facts of this case. Sections 11(1) to (8) of that Act reads thus, "11. Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act provides for appointment of Arbitrators. Both parties agree that Section 11 of the Act applies to the facts of this case. Sections 11(1) to (8) of that Act reads thus, "11. Appointment of arbitrators - (1) A person of any nationality may be an arbitrator, unless otherwise agreed by the parties(2) Subject to sub-section (6), the parties are free to agree on a procedure for appointing the arbitrator or arbitrators, (3) Failing any agreement referred to in sub-section (2) in an arbitration with three arbitrators, each party shall appoint one arbitrator, and the two appointed arbitrators shall appoint the third arbitrator who shall act as the presiding arbitrator, (4) If the appointment procedure in sub-section (3) applies and - (a) a party fails to appoint an arbitrator within thirty days from receipt of a request to do so from the other party; or (b) the two appointed arbitrators fail to agree on the third arbitrator within thirty days from the date of their appointment, the appointment shall be made, upon request of a party, by the Chief Justice or any person or institution designated by him, (5) Failing any agreement referred to in sub-section (2), in an arbitration with a sole arbitrator, if the parties fail to agree on the arbitrator within thirty days from receipt of a request by one party from the other party to so agree the appointment shall be made, upon request of a party, by the Chief Justice or any person or institution designated by him. (6) Where, under an appointment procedure agreed upon by the parties, (a) a party fails to act as required under that procedure; or (b) the parties, or the two appointed arbitrators, fail to reach an agreement expected of them under that procedure; or (c) a person, including an institution, fails to perform any function entrusted to him or it under that procedure, a party may request the Chief Justice or any person or institution designated by him to take the necessary measure, unless the agreement on the appointment procedure provide other means for securing the appointment(7) A decision on a matter entrusted by sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) of sub-section (6) to the Chief Justice or the person or institution designated by him is final, (8) The Chief Justice or the person or institution designated by him, in appointing an arbitrator, shall have due regard to (a) any qualifications required of the arbitrator by the agreement of the parties; and (b) other considerations as are likely to secure the appointment of an independent and impartial arbitrator." 8. The only Notification brought to my notice is dated 6-3-1996 issued by the Chief Justice of Madras High Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Ordinance of 1996. The only Notification brought to my notice is dated 6-3-1996 issued by the Chief Justice of Madras High Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Ordinance of 1996. Relevant portion of the Notification for our purpose and the procedure read thus, "In exercise of the powers conferred on the Chief Justice of the High Court of Madras under sub-section (10) of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Ordinance, 1996, I hereby make the following Scheme (1) Short title - This scheme may be called the appointment of Arbitrators by the Chief Justice of Madras High Court Scheme, 1996 (2) Submission of the request - The request to the Chief Justice under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) of sub-section (6) of Section 11 shall be made in writing and shall be accompanied by (a) the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof; (b) the names and addresses of the parties of the arbitration agreement; (c) the names and addresses of the arbitrators, if any already appointed; (d) the name and address of the person or institution, if any, to whom or which any function has been entrusted by the parties to the arbitration agreement under the appointment procedure agreed upon by them; (e) the qualifications required, if any, of the arbitrators by the agreement of the parties;(f) a brief written statement describing the general nature of the dispute and the points at issue; (g) the relief or remedy sought; and (h) an affidavit, supported by the relevant documents, to the effect that the conditions to be satisfied under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) or sub-section (6) of Section 11 as the case may be, before making the request to the Chief Justice, has been satisfied. (3) Authority to deal with the request - Under receipt of a request under paragraph 2, the Chief Justice may either deal with the matter entrusted to him or designate any other person or institution for the purpose. (4) Forwarding of request of designated person or institution - Where the Chief Justice designates any person or institution under paragraph 3, he shall have the request along with the documents mentioned in paragraph 2 forwarded forthwith to such person or institution and also have a notice sent to the parties to the arbitration agreement. (4) Forwarding of request of designated person or institution - Where the Chief Justice designates any person or institution under paragraph 3, he shall have the request along with the documents mentioned in paragraph 2 forwarded forthwith to such person or institution and also have a notice sent to the parties to the arbitration agreement. (5) Seeking further information - The Chief Justice or the person or the institution designated by him under paragraph 3 seek further information or clarification from the party making the request under this Scheme. (6) Rejection of request - Where request made by any party under paragraph 2 is not in accordance with the provisions of this Scheme, the Chief Justice or the person or the institution designated by him may reject it." (Paras 7 to 14 ommitted as unnecessary) 9. On a reading of paragraphs 3 and 4, it is clear that there is no general notification as is argued by learned counsel for 11th respondent designating the Subordinate Courts to act as Arbitrators or to discharge their duties under Section 11 of the Act. Since no other notification has been brought to my notice, I am constrained to set aside the impugned Order, holding that the lower Court has no jurisdiction to deal with the application, and consequently the civil revision petition is allowed. No costs, Connected C.M.P. is closed.