ORDER 1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the Docket Order, dated 21.9.2007 passed in E.P.(Sr).No.5221 of 2007 on the file of the District Judge, Warangal, by which, the E.P. filed by the petitioner for execution of the decree passed by the Chairman, A.P. Industrial Facilitation Council & Commission of Industries, Hyderabad, was returned at the S.R. stage, on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-M/s.Ajantha Industries, is a registered manufacturer and supplier of steel furniture (Almirahs, tables and racks). When the respondent-District Educational Officer, placed an order for supply of steel furniture, the petitioner supplied him the furniture on credit basis. Though several requests were made for payment of dues, the respondent failed to pay the amount. Then, the petitioner approached Andhra Pradesh Industrial Facilitation Council and filed a petition for payment of Rs.2,15,460/- towards interest alone. The respondent contested the proceedings, and the Council, after hearing both sides, passed an Award, dated 19.2.2005 directing the respondent herein to pay the amount for the delayed period as on the date of filing the petition, on or before 15.4.2005. As the amount was not paid within the stipulated period, the petitioner approached the District Judge's Court, Warangal and filed the present E.P., but the office refused to register it saying that it has no jurisdiction and placed the matter for orders before the District Judge, who took the view that the said Court has no jurisdiction to register the E.P. and returned it by his Docket Order dated 21.9.2007. Questioning this Docket Order, the petitioner has filed this Civil Revision Petition. 3. As it is an objection raised by the learned District Judge, this Court is of the view that there is no necessity to issue any notice to the respondent, and accordingly, the same is dispensed with. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material placed on record. 5. When any supplier supplies any goods or renders any services to any buyer, the buyer shall make payment on or before the date agreed upon between them in writing or when there is no agreement in that behalf, before the appointed day. When the small-scale industries, which are manufacturing several items such as Almirahs, electrical appliances, etc. 5. When any supplier supplies any goods or renders any services to any buyer, the buyer shall make payment on or before the date agreed upon between them in writing or when there is no agreement in that behalf, before the appointed day. When the small-scale industries, which are manufacturing several items such as Almirahs, electrical appliances, etc. are not getting the amounts before the appointed date and the buyers such as the Government are taking their own time in settling the matters, and the said small-scale industries are at a loss and put to lot of inconvenience, the Government of India promulgated an Act to provide for and regulate the payment of interest on delayed payments to small- scale and ancillary industrial undertakings and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto, and thus Act, 32 of 1993 i.e. Interest on Delayed Payments to Small-Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 came into existence. This Act came into force on 23.9.1992. Section 2 of the Act, 32 of 1993, deals with Definitions of various terms. As per Section 2(b) of the Act, the term "Appointed Day" means the day following immediately after the expiry of the period of thirty days from the day of acceptance or the day of deemed acceptance of any goods or any services by a buyer from a supplier. Section 7(A) of the Act 32 of 1993 deals with Establishment of Industry Facilitation Council, whereby, the State Government may, by Notification in the Official Gazette, establish one or more Industry Facilitation Councils at such places exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas, as may be specified in the Notification. Section 7(B) deals with Composition of Industry Facilitation Council, and as per Sub-section (3) of Section 7(B), the composition of the Industry Facilitation Council, the manner of filling vacancies among, and the procedure to be followed in the discharge of their functions, by the members, shall be such as may be prescribed by rule by the State Government. 6. In the light of the said Notification i.e. Section 7(A) of the Act, 32 of 1993, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued a Gazette Notification on 14th October, 1999 in G.O.Ms.No.307, Industries & Commerce (SSI), dated 11.10.1999, making Rules, which are known as the "Andhra Pradesh Industry Facilitation Council (Arbitration) Rules, 1999". 6. In the light of the said Notification i.e. Section 7(A) of the Act, 32 of 1993, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued a Gazette Notification on 14th October, 1999 in G.O.Ms.No.307, Industries & Commerce (SSI), dated 11.10.1999, making Rules, which are known as the "Andhra Pradesh Industry Facilitation Council (Arbitration) Rules, 1999". Rule-3 of the said Rules deals with Establishment of Councils and Rule-4 deals with Composition of Councils. Rule- 12 deals with Arbitral Award, according to which, the Council shall make an Arbitral Award in accordance with Section 31 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity "the Act, 1996). According to Rule-13, which deals with Interpretation of Rules, there is a non-abstant clause stating that notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the arbitral proceedings shall be governed by the Act, 1996 and these Rules shall be interpreted and applied so as to be consistent with and supplementary to and not in derogation of the Act, 1996. 7. Section 31 of the Act, 1996, deals with Form and Contents of Arbitral Award, according to which, any arbitral award shall be made in writing and shall be signed by the members of the Arbitral Tribunal. Chapter VIII of the Act, 1996 deals with Finality and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards. Under this Chapter, Section 36 deals with nforcement, where the time for making an application to set aside the arbitral award under Section 34 has expired, or such application having been made, it has been refused, the award shall be enforced under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in the same manner as if it were a decree of the Court. 8. From the above provisions of law, it is clear that the proceeding before a Council constituted under Section 7(A) of the Act 32 of 1993 is the same procedure that was incorporated in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Once the Council gives a finding, the same is to be treated as an Award passed under the provisions of the Act, 1996 in view of Rules 12 and 13 of the Rules made by the A.P. Government. Once an Award is passed as per the interpretation of the Rules, which say that the arbitral proceedings made under the Act 32 of 1993 and the Rules made thereunder shall be governed by the Act, 1996, the further proceedings as contemplated under the Act, 1996 shall follow. 9. Once an Award is passed as per the interpretation of the Rules, which say that the arbitral proceedings made under the Act 32 of 1993 and the Rules made thereunder shall be governed by the Act, 1996, the further proceedings as contemplated under the Act, 1996 shall follow. 9. In the light of Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which clearly envisages that the award shall be enforced under the C.P.C. in the same manner as if it were a decree of the Court, this Court is of the considered view that the Civil Court has jurisdiction. Hence, the objection raised by the learned District Judge about the maintainability of the Execution Petition, in my considered opinion, is not in consonance with the provisions of the Acts referred to above, and hence, the E.P. filed by the petitioner before the District Judge, Warangal is maintainable. 10. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the Docket Order dated 21.9.2007 is set aside and the learned District Judge, Warangal, is hereby directed to number the E.P. and proceed further in accordance with law. The learned counsel for the petitioner has represented that the original documents, which were filed before the District Judge, Warangal were submitted in the Registry at the time of filing this Civil Revision Petition. In the light of the orders passed by this Court, the Registry is hereby directed to return all the original documents to the learned counsel for the petitioner enabling him to present them before the District Judge. No costs.