D. K. SETH, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against Order No. 31 dated 26th November, 1997 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Calcutta, in Misc. Case No. 183 of 1993 returning the award and the plaint in T. S. No. 1975 of 1992 for making the award rule of the Court together with the objection filed by the appellant under sections 30 and 33 the Arbitration Act, 1940 (1940 Act) in Misc. Case No. 183 of 1993. ( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant points out that in view of section 31 (4) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, all applications are to be filed before the same Court where one of the applications was initially filed. According to him, an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 was filed before this Court on the basis whereof proceeding was proceeded and the award was passed. Therefore, in the suit, being Title Suit No. 1975 of 1992, seeking decree on the award, the appellant had filed an objection under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, taking a specific ground. The respondent had attempted to get the matter transferred to this Court by invoking Clause 13 of the Letters Patent which was dismissed by order dated 8th August, 1994 by this Court in Matter No. 2303 of 1993 on the very ground on which objection was taken. It is contended that on earlier occasion, similar effort by the respondent was denied by this Court. The application under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the respondent before the City Civil Court at Calcutta was also rejected. Therefore, the right having been accrued to the appellant, the same cannot be taken away by allowing an order for return of the plaint. He then contends that while returning the plaint, it cannot return the objection under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. According to him, the present case comes within the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) since it is being decided on the basis of the objection taken by the appellant. It does not come within the purview of Order 7 Rule 10 CPC. According to him, the present case comes within the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) since it is being decided on the basis of the objection taken by the appellant. It does not come within the purview of Order 7 Rule 10 CPC. ( 3 ) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the appellant, it appears that the arbitration agreement was filed before this Court in Special Suit No. 136 of 1988, as is apparent from order dated 19th of June, 1989 at page 34 of the Paper Book. Section 31 of the 1940 Act prescribes in sub-section 4 that where in any reference, any application under the 1940 Act has been made in a Court competent to entertain the same, it is that Court alone which shall have jurisdiction over the arbitration proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that reference and that arbitration proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. ( 4 ) THE expression used in sub-section 4 of section 31 of the Act, in no uncertain terms specifically, clearly and unambiguously, restricts the jurisdiction in respect of a particular arbitration proceeding in one and the same Court alone where once an application in connection with the reference/arbitration proceeding was made. Admittedly, in present case, the agreement was directed to be filed in this Court by the said order dated 19th June, 1989 passed by Special Suit No. 136 of 1988 and the arbitration was directed to be referred to the arbitrator to be appointed in terms of the rules of arbitration of the Indian Council of Arbitration in terms of clause 15 of the arbitration agreement. By reason thereof, arbitrator was appointed and the arbitration proceedings had proceeded and the award was filed. Therefore, in terms of sub-section 4 of section 31, it is this Court alone where the award could be filed. In view of the specific provision, the jurisdiction of other Courts, though may be a Court within the meaning of section 2 (c) of the 1940 Act, is barred by law. Section 31 (4) of the 1940 Act bars jurisdiction of all other Courts except the Court where a proceeding is once taken in connection with the reference of the arbitration proceedings. Section 31 (4) of the 1940 Act bars jurisdiction of all other Courts except the Court where a proceeding is once taken in connection with the reference of the arbitration proceedings. It is a statutory bar on account whereof no other Court, except this Court, has jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The necessity of clothing a single Court with effective and exclusive jurisdiction is to avoid conflict and scramble. This is essential whether the questions arises during the pendency of the arbitration or after the arbitration is completed or before the arbitration is commenced. It is a mater of principle, which the legislature though fit to confer jurisdiction only to the one and the same Court. ( 5 ) IN Kumbha Mawaji v. Dominion of India, AIR 1953 SC 313 : 1953 SCR 878 , the Apex Court had given a wide meaning to the expression "in any reference" to include an application even before a reference is made, namely, the first application ever made in connection with the reference and all subsequent applications till completion of the arbitration and thereafter. The Supreme Court in the said decision had also supported the necessity of clothing one and the single Court with effective and exclusive jurisdiction as essential for the proper conduct of the arbitration and for avoiding all conflicts and scramble. ( 6 ) THIS question was once considered in Matter No. 2303 of 1993 upon an application under clause 13 of the Letters Patent for transfer of the said Title Suit No. 1975 of 1992 filed before the City Civil Court at Calcutta to this Hon'ble Court. In the said proceeding, this Court had held that the City Court could not have jurisdiction and, therefore, the said suit cannot be transferred to this Court under clause 13 of the Letters Patent and had rejected the said application. The respondent had applied for transfer of the proceedings under section 24 CPC filed before the City Civil Court. This was also rejected by an Order No. 17 dated 25th March, 1996 and it was so done rightly. Then this application for return of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 was made which had since been allowed and is under challenged in this appeal. This was also rejected by an Order No. 17 dated 25th March, 1996 and it was so done rightly. Then this application for return of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 was made which had since been allowed and is under challenged in this appeal. ( 7 ) WHEN such an objection is raised in an application under sections 30 and 33 of the 1940 Act for setting aside of the award, the Court had no alternative but to decide the said question. The application was made could not be returned when the proceeding is hit by the mischief of Order 7 Rule 11 clause (d) CPC. If the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the plaint, it cannot assume jurisdiction under Order 7 Rule 10 to return the same. ( 8 ) SINCE the jurisdiction of Courts other than this Court are barred, therefore, the City Court could not have jurisdiction under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC for the purpose of returning the plaint. In Smt. Sisir Kana Guha and Others v. The Ayakar Grihanirman Samabaya Samity Limited And Another (FMAT No. 3724 of 1999, disposed of on 9th July, 2002), we have held that when clause (d) of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is attracted, the Court cannot return the plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC, since Order 7 Rule 11 and Order 7 Rule 10 CPC are mutually exclusive, the Court has no alternative but to reject the plaint. ( 9 ) IN that view of the matter, the order appealed against could not be passed and the plaint ought to have been rejected. ( 10 ) IN these circumstances, the appeal succeeds, the Order No. 31 dated 26th November, 1997 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court in Misc. Case No. 183 of 1993 arising out of Title Suit No. 1975 of 1992 is hereby set aside. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we do not propose to remand the matter to the trial Court in view of the settled proposition of law. The plaint is, therefore, hereby rejected. ( 11 ) HOWEVER, this order will not prevent the respondent from seeking appropriate direction from this Court for filing of the award under section 14 before this Court or otherwise. The plaint is, therefore, hereby rejected. ( 11 ) HOWEVER, this order will not prevent the respondent from seeking appropriate direction from this Court for filing of the award under section 14 before this Court or otherwise. In case it is necessary, the respondent may take aid of section 14 of the Limitation Act, if available. The Arbitrator shall also be at liberty to withdraw the award from the City Civil Court at Calcutta and file the same before this Court. The appeal is, thus, allowed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. J. Banerjee, J.-I agree. Appeal allowed