BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J. ( 1 ) THE judgment of the Court was as follows : this revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of an applicant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and by this application the petitioner has challenged the jurisdiction of an Additional district Judge to entertain such application. ( 2 ) THE present petitioner filed an application for setting aside an award under Section 34 of the Act before the learned District Judge, North 24-Parganas at Barasat thereby giving rise to Misc. Case No. 229 of 2003. The case has been transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge, Fast track Court No. 3 at Barasat for disposal by virtue of power conferred upon the District Judge under the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the 1887 Act ). ( 3 ) MR. Mukherjee, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised a pure question of law regarding jurisdiction. According to Mr. Mukherjee, in view of definition of 'court' given in the Act, only the principal Court of Civil Jurisdiction in the District, namely, the District Judge is competent to entertain an application under Section 34 of the Act. Mr. Mukherjee contends that a Court of Additional District Judge is Civil Court of a grade inferior to the Principal Civil Court of the District and as such, the said Additional District Judge cannot entertain such an application under section 34 of the Act. ( 4 ) THE aforesaid contention of Mr. Mukherjee has been seriously disputed by Mr. Kundu, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite party. According to Mr. Kundu, the District Judges and the Additional District judges are appointed by virtue of the provisions of Article 233 of the constitution of India. According to Mr. Kundu, in view of the provisions contained in Article 236 of the Constitution of India, the expression 'district judge' includes an Additional District Judge and as such the Additional District judge is also the Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction in the District. He, thus, prays for dismissal of this application. ( 5 ) TO appreciate the question raised by Mr. He, thus, prays for dismissal of this application. ( 5 ) TO appreciate the question raised by Mr. Mukherjee, it will be expedient to refer to the definition of 'court given in Section 2 (c), and also sections 47, 56 and 42 of the Act relied upon by Mr. Mukherjee and those are quoted below :- "section 2 (c) "court" means the Principal Civil Court of Original jurisdiction in a District, and includes the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject-matter of the arbitration if the same had been the subject-matter of a suit, but does not include any Civil court of a grade inferior to such Principal Civil Court, or any Court of small Causes, section 47-EVIDENCE, (1) The party applying for the enforcement of a foreign award shall, at the time of the application, produce before the Court- (a) the original award or a copy thereof, duly authenticated in the manner required by the law of the country in which it was made, (b) the original agreement for arbitration or a duly certified copy thereof, and (c) such evidence as may be necessary to prove that the award is a foreign award. (2) If the award or agreement to be produced under sub-section (1) is in a foreign language, the party seeking to enforce the award shall produce a translation into English certified as correct by a diplomatic or consular agent of the country to which that party belongs or certified as correct in such other manner as may be sufficient according to the law in force in India. Explanation : In this section and all the following sections of this Chapter, "court means the Principal Civil Court of Original jurisdiction in a District, and includes the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, having jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the award if the same had been the subject-matter of a suit, but does not include any Civil Court of a grade inferior to such Principal civil Court, or any Court of Small Causes. (Emphasis supplied) section 56-EVIDENCE (1) The party applying for the enforcement of a foreign award shall, at the time of application produce before the Court, (a) the original award or a copy thereof duly authenticated in the manner required by the law of the country in which it was made, (b) evidence proving that the award has become final, and (c) such evidence as may be necessary to prove that the conditions mentioned in clauses (a) and (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 57 are satisfied. (2) Where any document requiring to be produced under subsection (1) is in a foreign language, the party seeking to enforce the award shall produce a translation into English certified as correct by a diplomatic or consular agent of the country to which the party belongs or certified as correct in such other manner as may be sufficient according to the law in force in India. Explanation: In this section and all the following sections of this chapter, "court means the Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction in a District, and includes the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, having jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the award if the same had been the subject-matter of a suit, but does not include any Civil Court of a grade inferior to such Principal civil Court, or any Court of Small Causes. (Emphasis supplied) section 42-JURISDICTION notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Part or in 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 in no other Court. " ( 6 ) APART from the aforesaid provisions. the following provisions of the 1887 Act are also relevant and those are quoted below: 3-Classes of Courts. There shall be the following classes of Civil Courts under this act, namely :- (i) the Court of the District Judge, (ii) the Court of the Additional Judge, (iii) the Court of the Subordinate Judge, and (iv) the Court of the Munsif. 4. Number of District Judges, Subordinate Judges and munsifs. The State Government may after the number of District Judges, subordinate Judges and Munsifs now fixed. 8. Additional Judges. 4. Number of District Judges, Subordinate Judges and munsifs. The State Government may after the number of District Judges, subordinate Judges and Munsifs now fixed. 8. Additional Judges. (1) Where the business pending before any District Judge requires the aid of Additional Judges for its speedy disposal, the State government may, having consulted the High Court appoint such additional Judges as may be requisite, (2) Additional Judges so appointed shall discharge any of the functions of a District Judge which the District Judge may assign to them, and in the discharge of those functions they shall exercise the same powers as the District Judge. 39. Subordination of Courts to District Court. For the purpose of the last foregoing section the Presiding Officer of a Court subject to the administrative control of the District Judge shall be deemed to be immediately subordinate to the Court of the district Judge, tnd for the purpose of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court of such an officer shall be deemed to be of a grade inferior to that of the Court of the District Judge. " ( 7 ) MR. Mukherjee,learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has firstly relied upon the definition of 'court' in Section 2 (e) of the Act and pointed out that 'court' means the Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction in a District and includes the High Court in exercise of ordinary jurisdiction. According to Mr. Mukherjee, the use of the article the before the phrase "principal Civil Court" in the Section indicates that only the District Judge has the power to entertain such application which does include the Court of additional District Judge inasmuch as according to Section 3 of the1887 act, the Court of Additional Judge is of a different grade from that of a district Judge. According to Mr. Mukherjee, the provisions of Article 236 of the Constitution of India have nothing to do with the interpretation of the present provision inasmuch as in the Constitution only the mode of appoinmen, control and the power of the District Judge have been given. Mr. According to Mr. Mukherjee, the provisions of Article 236 of the Constitution of India have nothing to do with the interpretation of the present provision inasmuch as in the Constitution only the mode of appoinmen, control and the power of the District Judge have been given. Mr. Mukherjee contends that the Act being a subsequent piece of litigation after the coming in to operation of the Constitution,only the Principal Court of civil Jurisdiction in the District or the High Court exercising ordinary jurisdiction as provided in the Act has been conferred power to deal with an application under Section 34 of the Act. Thus. Mr. Mukherjee proceeds, the additional District Judge can neither be said to be the Principal Court of Civil jurisdiction in the District nor can it be treated to be a Court co-ordinate to that of the Principal Court of Civil Jurisdiction. Mr. Mukherjee, in this connection relies upon the provision of Section 24 of the Code of Civil procedure wherein power has been given to the District Judge to transfer any matter from the Court of one-Additional District Judge to another. Mr. Mukherjee contends that the Court of Additional District Judge, therefore, must be held to be a Court of a grade inferior to that District Judge. ( 8 ) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the aforesaid materials-on-record, I find that the Court of District judge as well as Additional District Judges is constituted in accordance with the provisions contained in the1887 Act. It is true that in Section 3 thereof, there are references of different classes of Civil Court and Court of district Judge has been shown in a different category from that of Court of additional Judge. But at the same time, if we go through Section 8 of the 1887 Act, it will appear that where the business pending before any District judge requires aid of Additional Judges for its speedy disposal, the State government may having consulted the High Court appoint such number of additional Judges as may be requisite and Additional Judges so appointed shall discharge any of the functions of the District Judge which the District judge may assign to them and in discharging those functions, they shall exercise the same power as the District Judge. ( 9 ) IN the case before us, the application under Section 34 was filed before the Court of the learned District Judge, the Principal Court of Civil jurisdiction but the learned District Judge in terms of the provisions contained in thel 887 Act transferred the matter to the Court of Additional District Judge for speedy disposal. Once such matter has been transferred to the Court of additional District Judge, by virtue of provision contained in Section 8 of thel 887 Act, the Additional District Judge shall exercise the same power as that of the District Judge. Thus, it should be presumed that the District Judge, the Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction is exercising power in terms of Section 34. ( 10 ) AS regards the provision of Section 3 of 1887 Act, I find that in the said section there is no gradation given but only the classes of Civil Courts have been mentioned, but simply because the Court of District Judge has been classified as item No. 1 and the Court of Additional District Judge as no. 2, that does not mean that the Court of Additional District Judge is a court inferior in grade to that of District Judge. Grade differs from classification in the sense that grade is the level of classification. ( 11 ) THEREFORE, even if I assume for the sake of argument that the provisions contained in Articles 233 and 236 ol the Constitution of India merely deal with appointments and control of the Subordinate Judiciary, even then there is no material to indicate that the Court of Additional District judge is inferior in grade to that of District Judge. It is true that in Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure the learned District Judge is vested with power to transfer the cases pending before one Court of Additional District Judge to another but Section 24 sub-section (3) specifically states that Court of additional and Assistant Judges should be deemed to be Subordinate to district Court only for the purpose of Section 24 and not for other provision of the Code. If the Court of Additional District Judge was really a Court inferior in grade to that of District Judge, there was no necessity of specifically incorporating Section 24 (3) a specifying the said "deemed sub-ordination" only for the purpose of that section. If the Court of Additional District Judge was really a Court inferior in grade to that of District Judge, there was no necessity of specifically incorporating Section 24 (3) a specifying the said "deemed sub-ordination" only for the purpose of that section. ( 12 ) THEREFORE, apart from the purpose mentioned in Section 24 of the code of Civil Procedure, the Additional District Judge cannot be said to be a court of a grade inferior to that of learned District Judge and by virture of provision under Section 8 of the1887 Act, such Court performs the same power as conferred upon the Court of District Judge once the case is transferred to such Court. ( 13 ) I, thus, find no substance in the aforesaid contention of Mr. Mukherjee. I now propose to deal with the decisions cited by Mr. Mukherjee. ( 14 ) IN the case of /. T. I. Ltd. v. District Judge reported in AIR 1998 All 313 , a learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court was of the view that a learned Additional District Judge is an officer of the grade inferior to that of the learned District Judge and thus held that Section 8 of the 1887 Act was not "potent enough" to confer on the Court of the Additional District Judge the status of the "principal Court of Civil Jurisdiction of the District". With great respect to the learned Judge of that Court, I am unable to uphold the aforesaid reason. I have already indicated that I am not prepared to accept the proposition of law that an Additional District Judge is inferior in grade to that of a District Judge. In this connection, it will not be out of place to refer to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of A. K. Subraman v. Union of india reported in AIR 1975 SC 483 . In the said decision at Paragraph 20 the supreme Court while considering the meaning of the word "grade" observed that the word "grade" has various shades of meaning in the service jurisprudence and it is sometime used to denote a pay-scale and sometime a cadre. If we apply the said principle to the fact of the present case, it will appear that the Additional District Judge and the District Judge of the District are of same cadre and pay-scale. If we apply the said principle to the fact of the present case, it will appear that the Additional District Judge and the District Judge of the District are of same cadre and pay-scale. Thus, both are of the same grade and the additional District Judge cannot be said to be of inferior grade to that of a distrtict Judge. I have already pointed out that the Additional District Judge can be said to be Subordinate to the District Judge only for the purpose of disposal fo an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I am, therefore, unable to follow the said decision of the Allahabad High Court. I, thus, maintain that in view of Section 8 of the 1887 Act, the Additional district Judges exercise the powers of the Principal Court of Civil Jurisdiction in the District. ( 15 ) IN the case of Deepak Mitra v. District Judge reported in AIR 2000 all 9 , High Court in a writ application referred all disputes between the parties to Arbitral Tribunal. The Tribunal simply recorded the fact that the majority of the share holders do not want division of property of the company. The question was whether such order amounted to an interim award and whether an application under Section 34 of the Act would lie before the learned District judge. Allahabad. In such a fact, the High Court held that no proceeding being pending before it, the Court became functus officio and as such it had no jurisdiction to entertain such application. On the question whether the decision was an interim award, the Court answered the question in negative and held that the proceeding initiated in the Court of District Judge, Allahabad was not maintainable. Therefore, the said decision is of no help to answer the question whether an Additional District Judge can entertain an application under Section 34 of the Act. ( 16 ) THE decisions cited by Mr. Mukherjee are thus of no help to his client. ( 17 ) I, therefore, hold that an Additional District Judge to whom any matter has been transferred by a District Judge in exercise of power conferred under Section 8 of the 1887 Act is competent to entertain an application under Section 34 of the Act. The only point raised by Mr. Mukherjee is, thus, bereft of any substance. The revisional application is dismissed accordingly. The only point raised by Mr. Mukherjee is, thus, bereft of any substance. The revisional application is dismissed accordingly. No costs. Later As prayer for, let xerox certified copy of this order be given to the parties within one weak from the date of making of such application.