JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. - This is a Civil Revision and has been directed against the order dated 21.5.1999, passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Patiala, who ordered that the case be withdrawn from the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Patiala and be entrusted to the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Rajpura. 2. Some facts can be noticed in the following manner. An application was moved by Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter called "Corporation") for recalling of the order dated 13.12.1997 vide which the learned District Judge, Patiala withdrew the matter from the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division. Rajpura and transferred it to Civil Judge, Senior Division, Patiala. According to the Corporation, M/s Jai Shankar Transport Company had filed objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act before Civil Judge, Junior Division, Rajpura. The Corporation moved an application that the matter was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Court at Rajpura and it was the Court at Patiala which can entertain the issue. The matter arose from an order passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Rajpura under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the objections if any should have been filed at Patiala and not before Civil Judge, Junior Division, Rajpura. The objections have been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the arbitral award and these objections had to be filed before the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, which is the Court of District Judge, at Patiala and, therefore, the entrustment of the matter to Civil Judge, Senior Division, Patiala, was not proper. 3. Vide the impugned order dated 21.5.1999, the learned District Judge, Patiala directed that the case be withdrawn from the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Patiala and be entrusted to the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Rajpura. Aggrieved by the impugned order the present revision has been filed. 4. I have heard Shri Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Ishwar Lal, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent and with their assistance have gone through the record of this case. 5. Aggrieved by the impugned order the present revision has been filed. 4. I have heard Shri Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Ishwar Lal, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent and with their assistance have gone through the record of this case. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of Allahabad High Court reported as AIR 2000 Allahabad 9, Deepak Mitra v. District Judge, Allahabad and submits that the order of the learned District Judge, Patiala, recalling the order is illegal and wrong. The counsel submitted with reference to Section 2(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 that only the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in the District is entitled to entertain the objection. He also invited my attention to Section 34 Sub-clauses (1) and (2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and submitted that the objections could only be entertained at Patiala and not at Rajpura. The judgment relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts in hand. 6. In the present case the matter was referred to the Arbitrator by the Rajpura Court. The objections could only be decided by that very Court in view of the provisions of Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which lays down that notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Part or in any other law for the time being in force, where with respect to an arbitration agreement any application under this Part has been made in a Court, that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and the arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Meaning thereby the Court at Rajpura through which the matter was referred to the Arbitrator will have the jurisdiction to entertain the objections. Section 42 of the Act prevails upon over all other provisions of the Act. In this case the Arbitrator was appointed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Rajpura, therefore, all the proceedings for enforcing the award are also supposed to be dealt with by that Court and not by the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction at Patiala. Therefore, I do not see any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. No merit. Revision dismissed.