Judgment :- Petitioner in O.P. (Arb.) No.31/1995 on the file of the Sub Court, Ernakulam is the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner raised certain disputes regarding the work under agreement dated 6-5-1986 and the same was referred to arbitration and the then Superintending Engineer, irrigation South Circle, Thiruvananthapuram was appointed as sole arbitrator. The arbitrator passed the award for an amount of Rs.13,23,750/- with interest. The revision petitioner filed O.P.(Arb).No.31/95 before the Sub Court, Ernakulam praying for a decree in terms of the award. The respondents filed application for setting aside the award. After considering the O.P. (Arb) the court below ordered that the plaint would be returned to the revision petitioner and the same has to be presented in proper court. The court further directed the revision petitioner to file an application under rule 10A of order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure within three days. It is submitted that instead of filing application the revision petitioner has approached this Court for setting aside the impugned order. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per sections 14 and 31 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 the court before which the award is filed is competent to pass a decree in terms of the award. To substantiate the above contention learned counsel relies on a decision of the Apex Court reported in M/s. Guru Nanak Foundation V. M/s. Rattan Singh & Sons (AIR 1981 SC 2075) and a decision of the Calcutta High Court reported in Ferre Alloys Corporation Ltd. V. A.K. Ghosh and Bros. (AIR 1980 Cal.421). 3. Learned Government Pleader, relying on the counter affidavit filed for and on behalf of the 2nd respondent contends that the order under challenge requires no interference in the light of unambiguous provision of sections 14 and 31 of the Arbitration Act. 4. Question to be decided is with regard to the jurisdiction of the Sub Court to pass a decree in terms of the award. Sections 14 of the Arbitration Act reads as follows:- “14. Award to be signed and filed – (1) When the arbitrators or umpire have made their award, they shall sign it and shall give notice in writing to the parties of the making and signing thereof and of the amount of fees and charges payable in respect of the arbitration and award. Award to be signed and filed – (1) When the arbitrators or umpire have made their award, they shall sign it and shall give notice in writing to the parties of the making and signing thereof and of the amount of fees and charges payable in respect of the arbitration and award. 2) The arbitrators or umpire shall, at the request of any party to the arbitrations agreement or any person claiming under such party or if so directed by the Court and upon payment of the fees and charges due in respect of the arbitration and award and of the costs and charges of filing the award, cause the award or a signed copy of it, together with any depositions and documents which may have been taken and proved before them, to be filed in Court, and the Court shall thereupon give notice to the parties of the filing of the award. 3) Where the arbitrators or umpire state a special case under clause (b) of section 13, the Court, after giving notice to the parties and hearing them, shall pronounce its opinion thereon and such opinion shall be added to, and shall form part of, the award.” Section 31 of the Arbitration Act reads as follows:- “31. Jurisdiction – (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, an award may be filed in any Court having jurisdiction in the matter to which the reference relates. 2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force and save as otherwise provided in this Act, all questions regarding the validity, effect or existence of an award or an arbitration agreement between the parties to the agreement or persons claiming under them shall be decided by the Court in which the award under the agreement has been, or may be, filed, and by no other Court. 3) All applications regarding the conduct of arbitration proceedings or otherwise arising out of such proceedings shall be made to the Court where the award has been, or maybe, filed, and to no other Court. 3) All applications regarding the conduct of arbitration proceedings or otherwise arising out of such proceedings shall be made to the Court where the award has been, or maybe, filed, and to no other Court. 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 applications arising out of that reference and the arbitration proceedings shall be made in that court and in no other Court.” In this case it is to be noted that in the agreement itself there is an arbitration clause. As per the provisions of sections 14 and 31 of the Arbitration Act, the award should be filed before a court competent to entertain it. The facts in the decisions of the Apex Court relied on by learned counsel are not on similar situation. In the above decisions the Apex Court itself appointed the arbitrator whereas in the case in hand in the agreement itself contained a clause for arbitration. Hence, the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The next question to be considered is whether the order challenge is sustainable or not. This Court has already found that the filing of the award before the Sub Court is not correct. The arbitrator ought to have filed the award before the court required to be filed. If that be so, the direction issued by the Court to the petitioner to file an application is wrong and it is untenable. 6. In this context, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that as the award has already been filed before the court, rightly or wrongly, the practical difficulty which the parties may face can be considered by this Court and this Court may direct the court below to consider the award and pass appropriate orders thereon after hearing both parties. Considering the practical difficulties in re-filing the award before the concerned court and since both the parties have filed their respective pleadings, it is only proper for the Sub Court, Ernakulam to consider the matter as per law and dispose of as early as possible. Considering the practical difficulties in re-filing the award before the concerned court and since both the parties have filed their respective pleadings, it is only proper for the Sub Court, Ernakulam to consider the matter as per law and dispose of as early as possible. That apart some other arbitration awards pertaining to the Kallada Irrigation Project were already dealt with by the same court. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, this court is of the view that such a course will not be taken as a precedent. 7. The revision petition is disposed of as above. No order as to costs. 8. Registry is directed to send back the records forthwith.