Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner. 2. The order passed in CMPSR.No.42886 of 2007 in Arbitration O.P.No.543 of 2003 dated 210. 2007 on the file of the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai is under challenge in this revision petition. 3. Arbitration O.P.No.543 of 2003 was filed under Section 9(ii)(b)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 r/w Section 151 of CPC for issuing a prohibitory order prohibiting the garnishees viz., 2nd ,3rd and 4th respondents from making any payment to the extent of the award amount to the first respondent and direct the garnishees to deposit the amount payable to the first respondent to the credit of Arbitration O.P.No.543 of 2003. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that the said Arbitration O.P. was dismissed on 211. 2004 as not pressed. The respondent in Arbitration O.P. 543 of 2003 had filed CMPSR.No.42886 of 2007 in Arbitration O.P.No.543 of 2003 for payment out of Rs.2,51,008/-to the petitioner. The learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai relying on a decision reported in Sundaram Finance Limited, rep. By the Assistant Manager(Legal) -vs-M.K.Kurian(2006(1)CTC 433) had returned the said application on the ground that under Section 2(1))(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996(26 of 1996), Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the payment out application in the Arbitration O.P. with a direction to represent the same before the proper forum. Now the said order is under challenge before this Court in this revision. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that since the Arbitration O.P.No.543 of 2003 has already been disposed of, there is no bar in allowing the payment out application by the Civil Court and that erroneously the learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai had interpreted the findings in Sundaram Finance Limited, rep. By the Assistant Manager(Legal) -vs-M.K.Kurian(2006(1)CTC 433) has returned the petition without entertaining the same. By the Assistant Manager(Legal) -vs-M.K.Kurian(2006(1)CTC 433) has returned the petition without entertaining the same. A reading of the above said ratio decidenti delivered by a Division Bench of this Court will go to show that a direction has been given to the Registry to call for the papers in similar cases which have been transferred to the City Civil Court by following the Judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court and place them before the appropriate Court for disposal in accordance with law which means all the cases relating to the Arbitration Act which were transferred from the High Court to the City Civil Court were ordered to be called back and directed to be placed before the appropriate Court for disposal . The said Judgment does not state that in respect of the disposed of cases, payment out application can be entertained by the City Civil Court. Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996(26 of 1996) reads as follows: "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 City Civil Court, or any Court of Small Causes." So I am of the view that the remedy open to the revision petitioner is to re-present the petition which was returned by the learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai before this Court . 6. With the above observation, the civil revision petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2007 is closed.