JUDGMENT S.K. Mukherjee, J. In the year 1980 an agreement was entered into between the petitioner/contractor and the Durgapur Notified Area Authority, opposite party No. 1 herein, for construction of a high school building in Bidhannagar, Durgapur. In the agreement entered in to between the parties there was an Arbitration Clause. The said clause was as under :- "8. Any dispute arising under the agreement shall be referred to the arbitration, which will be appointed from amongst the following persons: (a) Chief Engineer, P.W.D. (b) Chief Engineer, D.S.P. (c) Chief Engineer, D.P.L. One Arbitrator to be appointed by the owner and the other by the Contractor and in case the Arbitrators shall not agree then to the decision of an Umpire to be appointed by them. The word of the arbitrations or the Umpire is to be final and binding on both parties." 2. It appears that some dispute cropped up between the parties and the contractor intended to refer to the dispute to the arbitration. On the quary of the Executive Officer, Durgapur Notified Area Authority, the Secretary, the Durgapur Projects Limited (D.P.L. in short) informed that the post of the Chief Engineer (Construction) has been re-designated as that of General Superintendent (Construction) and it was, further, informed that at the material point of time Shri H. Sengupta was holding the post. Shri H. Sengupta is the opposite party No.2 in this application. On December 17, 1986 the contractor nominated the said Shri H. Sengupta as his Arbitrator. 3. It appears that the contractor moved an application under section 28 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 before the learned Assistant District Judge at Burdwan and the said proceeding was registered as Misc. Case No. 182 of 1997 of the said court. The said petition under section 28 was filed on August 19, 1987. By the Order No. 36 dated July 17, 1991 the learned Assistant District Judge, Burdwan allowed the said application under section 28 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and granted an extension of time of four months for making the award. 4. On or about August 22, 1991 the opposite party No.1 herein filed an application under sections 5, 9 and 11 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 before the learned Assistant District Judge at Durgapur, District: Burdwan. 4. On or about August 22, 1991 the opposite party No.1 herein filed an application under sections 5, 9 and 11 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 before the learned Assistant District Judge at Durgapur, District: Burdwan. It was contended by the opposite party No.1 in the said application that the opposite party No.2 was never named as the arbitrator and as such is not entitled to arbitrate the dispute between the parties. It was, further, prayed that the authority of the opposite party No.2 to act as an arbitrator be revoked and his purported appointment be set aside. The said application was contested by the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 by filing their respective written objections. 5. However, on or about November 8,1991 the opposite party No.2 published his award and he filed the award in the court of the learned Assistant District Judge at Burdwan on November 11, 1991. A proceeding has been registered as Title Suit No. 106 of 1991 of the said Court for passing judgment in terms of the award. The opposite party No.1, also, filed an application under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 before the court of the learned Assistant District Judge at Burdwan giving rise to Misc. Case No. 203 of 1991. Both the said suit and Misc. case are pending in the court of the learned Assistant District Judge at Burdwan. 6. By the order impugned the learned Assistant District Judge at Durgapur allowed the application filed by the opposite party No.1 herein under sections 5, 9 and 11 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 being Misc. Case No. 28 of 1991 and held that the appointment of the opposite party No.2 as the sole arbitrator was bad in the eye of law and the opposite party No.2 is not entitled to arbitrate. Being aggrieved by the impugned order being Order No. 20 dated September 13,1993 passed in Misc. Case No. 28 of 1991 the present revisional application has been preferred by the contractor/petitioner. 7. The only argument that has been advanced by Shri Gopal Chandra Chakraborty, learned Senior Advocate, is that the Durgapur court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the opposite party No.1 under sections 5, 9 and 11 of the Arbitration Act as on August 22, 1991 the court of the learned Assistant District Judge at Durgapur was non est. Mr. Mr. Chakraborty vehemently argued that the court of the learned Assistant District Judge at Durgapur was constituted by an order communicated under Memo No. 26635-J dated October 22,1986 for a temporary period up to February 28, 1987 from the date of assumption of charge by the officer selected to preside over the court. He argued that between March 1, 1987 and August 30, 1990 there was no notification/Government order for continuation of the court of the learned Assistant District Judge at Durgapur. The said court was made permanent by a Government order dated July 8; 1996. Mr. Chakraborty, therefore, submits that the opposite party had no reason and or bona fide justification in filing the application under sections 5, 9, and 11 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 in the court of the learned Assistant District Judge, Durgapur as the said court had no jurisdiction to function. 8. It is pertinant to note here that during the pendency of the present revisional application S. N. Mallick, J., directed submission of a report as to whether in the District of Burdwan the court of the learned Assistant District Judge at Durgapur was functioning between January 31,1987 and August 31, 1991. It is relevant, also, to note here the application under section 28 of the Arbitration Act being Misc. Case No 182 of 1987 was filed by the contractor on August 19, 1987 and the application under sections 5, 9 and 11 under Arbitration Act, 1940 being Misc. Case No. 28 of 1991 was filed by the opposite party No.1 on August 22, 1991 respectively. Persuent to the aforesaid directions of S. N. Mallick, J., the learned District Judge at Burdwan submitted a report indicating that the court of the learned Assistant District Judge at Durgapur was functioning between January 31, 1987 and August 31, 1991 and the names of the learned Presiding Officers were, also, supplied in the report. 9. Under section 13 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 (Act 12 of 1887) powers have been given to fix local limits of jurisdiction of courts indicating that the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, fix and alter the local limits of the jurisdiction of any civil court under the said Act. 9. Under section 13 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 (Act 12 of 1887) powers have been given to fix local limits of jurisdiction of courts indicating that the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, fix and alter the local limits of the jurisdiction of any civil court under the said Act. It is, further, provided that if the same local jurisdiction is assigned to two or more Assistant District Judges [presently known as Civil Judge (Senior Division)] or to two or more Munsifs [now known as Civil Judge (Junior Division)], the District Judge may assign to each of them such civil business cognizable by them subject to any general or special orders of the High Court. It was, also, provided that when civil business arising in any local area is assigned by the learned District Judge to one of two or more Judges, a decree or order passed by the Judge shall not be invalid by reason only of the case in which it was made having arisen wholly or in part in a place beyond the local area if that place is within the local limits fixed by the State Government under section 13(1) of the said Act. 10. The Judicial Department of the Government of West Bengal by the notification dated October 22, 1986, inter alia, conveyed the sanction of the Governor to the creation of a temporary court of learned Assistant District Judge at Durgapur in the District of Burdwan for a period up to February 28, 1987 from the date of assumption of charge by the officer selected to preside over the court. The court of the learned Assistant District Judge at Durgapur had started functioning from January 31,1987 and exercised jurisdiction over the local limit of territorial jurisdiction of Durgapur. After creation of the said of the court of the learned Assistant District Judge at Durgapur, the said court started functioning with effect from January 31, 1987 and is continuing till date. The Judicial Department extended the sanction of a temporary court of learned Assistant District Judge at Durgapur and, ultimately, issued a notification dated July 8, 1996 whereby the temporary court of learned Assistant District Judge at Durgapur was regularised as a permanent court with retrospective effect from March 1, 1987. The Judicial Department extended the sanction of a temporary court of learned Assistant District Judge at Durgapur and, ultimately, issued a notification dated July 8, 1996 whereby the temporary court of learned Assistant District Judge at Durgapur was regularised as a permanent court with retrospective effect from March 1, 1987. From the correspondence exchanged between the learned Registrar of this court and the learned District Judge, Burdwan it is, thus, clear that the court of the learned Assistant District Judge at Durgapur is functioning continuously from January 31,1987. 11. Moreover, the distribution of local limits under section 13(2) of the said Act, No. 12 of 1887 does not effect a transfer of jurisdiction, but merely distributes it as a matter of administrative convenience. The learned Assistant District Judge concerned who has passed the order impugned is the learned Assistant District Judge for the District of Burdwan and since the teritorial limit of Durgapur is within the District of Burdwan it can not be said that the order passed by him, in the absence of purported notification, is illegal and non est in the eye of law. This is not a case of total lack of jurisdiction. It can never be said that the whole proceeding is coram non judice and void. No case of substantial prejudice could be made out by Shri Chakraborty while arguing the revisional application and I do not think that the order impugned, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the petitioner against whom it was made inasmuch as the petitioner has got full opportunity to contest the Misc. Case No. 28 of 1991 on merits. 12. No other point was argued by Shri Chakraborty. I am not inclined to accept the aforementioned submissions of Shri Chakraborty. 13. Accordingly, I reject the revisional application and affirm the order impugned. 14. There will be no order as to cost. 15. Urgent xerox certified copy, if applied for, be supplied to the parties as expeditiously as possible. 16. This revisional application has been disposed of on January 9,2000. After judgement was delivered at the first sitting of the court, at 2 p.m. on January 9, 2000 Mr. 14. There will be no order as to cost. 15. Urgent xerox certified copy, if applied for, be supplied to the parties as expeditiously as possible. 16. This revisional application has been disposed of on January 9,2000. After judgement was delivered at the first sitting of the court, at 2 p.m. on January 9, 2000 Mr. Gopal Chandra Chakraborty, learned Senior Advocate, for the petitioner mentioned the matter before me contending, inter alia, that his first point, that in view of section 31(4) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 the learned Assistant District Judge at. Durgapur had no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the opposite party No.1 under sections 5, 9 and 11 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 inasmuch as the application under section 28 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 filed by the petitioner herein was disposed of by the learned Assistant District Judge at Burdwan, has not been considered by me in my judgement. In view of the aforesaid submissions of Mr. Chakraborty, I directed the matter to be listed on January 10, 2001 with notice to the learned Advocates for the opposite party No. 1. On January 10, 2001 when the matter was called on for hearing Mr. Chakraborty filed an affidavit affirmed by his learned Advocate-on-record indicating, inter alia, the aforesaid submissions of Mr. Chakraborty. 17. Without, however, going in to the controversy, I have heard Mr. Chakraborty for the petitioner touching section 31 (4) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and Mr. Amal Krishna Saha appearing for opposite party No.1 in reply thereto. 18. Mr. Chakraborty submitted that the application under section 28 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 was filed by the petitioner in the court of the learned Assistant District Judge at Burdwan being Misc. Case No. 182 of 1987 and the same was disposed of by the said court on July 17, 1991 and in view of the provisions of section 31(4) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 that court alone has the jurisdiction over the arbitration proceeding and all subsequent applications arising out of that reference and no other court. Mr. Chakraborty cited the case of Guru Nanak Foundation vs. Rattan Singh and Sons, reported in 1981 (4) SCC 634 and drew the attention of the court to the paragraphs 15 to 17 thereof in order to apprise the court about the scope of section 31(4) of the Arbitration Act, 1940. Mr. Mr. Chakraborty cited the case of Guru Nanak Foundation vs. Rattan Singh and Sons, reported in 1981 (4) SCC 634 and drew the attention of the court to the paragraphs 15 to 17 thereof in order to apprise the court about the scope of section 31(4) of the Arbitration Act, 1940. Mr. Chakraborty, also, cited the case of Kiran Singh and Ors. vs. Chaman Paswan and Ors., reported in AIR 1954 Supreme Court 340, in order to contend that an order passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nulity. 19. In order to appreciate the submissions of Mr. Chakraborty I am to consider the provisions of section 31(4) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 which runs as under :- "(4) Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force, where in any reference any application under this Act has been made 'in a Court competent to entertain it, that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over the arbitration proceedings and all subsequent application arising out of that reference and the arbitration proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court." 20. Admittedly, the cause of action in respect of this arbitration proceeding arose within the local limit of territorial jurisdiction of Durgapur. A court of the learned Assistant District Judge at Durgapur, District Burdwan was constituted for a temporary period up to February 28, 1997 from the date of assumption of the charge by the officer selected to preside over the court. The court of learned Assistant District Judge at Durgapur, District Burdwan started functioning from January 31, 1987 and exercised jurisdiction over the local limit of territorial jurisdiction of Durgapur. The said court started functioning from January 31, 1987 and is continuing till date. The Judicial Department extended the sanction of a temporary court of the learned Assistant District Judge at Durgapur and, ultimately, issued a notification whereby the said temporary court was regularised as a permanent court with retrospective effect from March 1, 1987. 21. The application under section 28 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 was filed by Mr. Chakraborty's client in the court of the learned Assistant District Judge at Burdwan on August 19, 1987 when the court of learned Assistant- District Judge at Durgapur was functioning. 21. The application under section 28 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 was filed by Mr. Chakraborty's client in the court of the learned Assistant District Judge at Burdwan on August 19, 1987 when the court of learned Assistant- District Judge at Durgapur was functioning. Section 31(4) of the Arbitration Act contemplates filing of an earlier application under the Arbitration Act, 1940 in a court competent to entertain it. In view of functioning of the court of the learned Assistant District Judge at Durgapur, District Burdwan, on August 19, 1987 the court of the learned Assistant District Judge at Burdwan was not 'a court competent to entertain' the application under section 28 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 on that date. The decision in the case of Kiran Singh (supra) has no application here. Therefore, the bar under section 31(4) of the said Act has no application in the facts of the present case. 22. Let me proceed, for the present, assuming that there was no court of learned Assistant District Judge at Durgapur when the application under section 28 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 was filed by Mr. Chakraborty's client and assuming that the said court was 'a court competent to entertain' the said application. When, however, the application under sections 5, 9 and 11 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 was filed by the opposite party No.1 on August 22, 1991 a competent court of learned Assistant District Judge at Durgapur was functioning and exercising jurisdiction over the local limit of territorial jurisdiction of Dargapur. Mr. Chakraborty submits that inspite of creation of the court of the learned Assistant District Judge at Durgapur to exercise jurisdiction over the local limit of territorial jurisdiction of Durgapur, since the application under section 28 of the Aribitration Act, 1940 was filed and decided by the learned Assistant District Judge at Burdwan, it is only the court of the learned Assistant District Judge at Burdwan that was competent to entertain the subsequent application and no other court. I am not impressed with the said argument of Mr. Chakraborty. The court of the learned Assistant District Judge at Burdwan, at the headquarter of the District, was functioning and exercising jurisdiction over the local limit of various territorial jurisdiction including Durgapur at one point of time. I am not impressed with the said argument of Mr. Chakraborty. The court of the learned Assistant District Judge at Burdwan, at the headquarter of the District, was functioning and exercising jurisdiction over the local limit of various territorial jurisdiction including Durgapur at one point of time. It will be preposterous to hold that even after creation of a court of the learned Assistant District Judge at Durgapur to exercise jurisdiction over the local limit of territorial jurisdiction of Durgapur, the subsequent application under sections 5, 9 and 11 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 has to be filed only before the learned Assistant District Judge at Burdwan as the earlier application was filed and decided by the said court. The very purpose of creation of the court of learned Assistant District Judge at Durgapur will become redundant. If the argument of Mr. Chakraborty is accepted the same will lead to absurdity inasmuch as in case of bifurcation of a district or even of a State all subsequent application will have to be filed before a court outside the district or the State, as the case may be. I hold that in this case the court of the learned Assistant District Judge at Burdwan has divested itself of its jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The decision in the case of Guru Nanak Foundation (supra), relied on by Mr. Chakraborty, dealt with a different aspect and, therefore, has no application here. The learned Assistant District Judge at Burdwan entertained the application under section 28 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 assuming at a point of time when the said court was exercising jurisdiction over the local limit of territorial jurisdiction of Durgapur and as the court of the learned Assistant District Judge at Durgapur was exercising jurisdiction over the local limit of territorial jurisdiction of Durgapur on the date of filing application under sections 5, 9 and 11 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 by the opposite party No.1, the said court was the court competent to entertain the said subsequent application being the successor court. 23. After hearing Mr. Chakraborty I find no reason to change my views to the effect that the revisional application should be rejected and I, accordingly, maintain that the revisional application is liable to be rejected. 24. Office to supply xerox certified copy, if applied for, as early as possible to the parties. Revisional application rejected.