JUDGMENT Hon’ble ccccccccccc, J.—Heard Shri S.D. Kautilya, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Bakhtiyar Yusuf, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 2. The respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for enforcement of the award. Subsequently, an application under Section 24 of the C.P.C. read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. was filed by the respondents stating therein that the Civil Judge had no jurisdiction to hear the matter under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and that the jurisdiction to decide the matter was with the District Judge, and therefore, the said application may be transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction. The District Judge, by the impugned order dated 3.10.2008, allowed the application of the respondents, holding that the application under Section 36 of the Act could only be decided by the Court of District Judge and not by the Court of Civil Judge ( Senior Division). The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that the Court of Civil Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Arbitration Act) but submitted that the application under Section 24 of the C.P.C. was not maintainable since the said section was not applicable to proceedings arising under Section 36 of the Arbitration Act. 4. In my opinion, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is bereft of merit. Section 24 of the C.P.C. reads as under : “24. 4. In my opinion, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is bereft of merit. Section 24 of the C.P.C. reads as under : “24. General power of transfer and withdrawal.—(1) On the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and after hearing such of them as desired to be heard, or of its own motion without such notice, the High Court or the District Court may at any stage— (a) transfer any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending before it for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same, or (b) withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in any Court subordinate to it, and (i) try or dispose of the same; or (ii) transfer the same for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same; or (iii) retransfer the same for trial or disposal to the Court from which it was withdrawn. (2) Where any suit or proceeding has been transferred or withdrawn under sub-sec (1), the Court which [is thereafter to try or dispose of such suit or proceeding] may, subject to any special directions in the case of an order of transfer, either retry it or proceed from the point at which it was transferred or withdrawn. (3) For purposes of this section— (a) Courts of Additional and Assistant Judges shall be deemed to be subordinate to the District Court; (b) “proceeding” includes a proceeding for the execution of a decree or order. (4) The Court trying any suit transferred or withdrawn under this section from a Court of Small Causes shall, for the purposes of such suit, be deemed to be a Court of Small Causes. (5) A suit or proceeding may be transferred under this section from a Court which has no jurisdiction to try it.” 5. From the aforesaid provision, it is clear that a power has been given to transfer any suit, appeal or other proceedings pending before the Court. The word “proceeding” has been explained in clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 24 of the Act to include proceedings for the execution of a decree or order. 6. From the aforesaid provision, it is clear that a power has been given to transfer any suit, appeal or other proceedings pending before the Court. The word “proceeding” has been explained in clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 24 of the Act to include proceedings for the execution of a decree or order. 6. The question which now arises for the consideration is, whether the application filed under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 comes under the category of the word “proceeding”. Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 reads as under : “36. Enforcement.—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 ( 5 of 1908) in the same manner as if it were a decree of the Court.” 7. From the aforesaid, it is clear that an award can be enforced under the Code of Civil Procedure in the same manner as if it were a decree of the Court. Section 24(3)(b) of the C.P.C. indicates that proceedings including a proceeding for the execution of a decree or order. 8. In my opinion, the language of Section 24(3)(b) of the C.P.C. is clear and explicit and an application for the enforcement of the award filed under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 would come under the category of the word “proceeding” under Section 24 of the C.P.C. Consequently, the District Judge had the power and jurisdiction to transfer the application filed by the respondents under Section 36 of the Arbitration Act from the Court which had no jurisdiction to decide the case in the first instance to the Court of competent jurisdiction. 9. In Amar Nath Swami v. Ramdeo, 2000(2) JCLR 41 (All), the Court held that a District Judge was empowered to transfer a suit or proceeding from a Court which had no jurisdiction to try it. Similar view was given in another decision of the Court in Rajesh Kumar v. M/s Mohan Cut Piece Stores and another, 1987 ALR 776. 10. In Amar Nath Swami v. Ramdeo, 2000(2) JCLR 41 (All), the Court held that a District Judge was empowered to transfer a suit or proceeding from a Court which had no jurisdiction to try it. Similar view was given in another decision of the Court in Rajesh Kumar v. M/s Mohan Cut Piece Stores and another, 1987 ALR 776. 10. In view of the aforesaid decisions and in view of the admitted fact that the application under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was wrongly filed in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), this Court is of the opinion that the District Judge was empowered to transfer a case to the Court of competent jurisdiction under Section 24 of the C.P.C. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a decision in Ganga Ram Dohrey v. State of U.P., AIR 2002 All 238 , wherein it has been held that Section 24 of the C.P.C. has no application in proceedings arising under the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 which is a special law and which excludes the application of Section 24 of the C.P.C. The learned counsel took strength from this judgment and submitted that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a Special Act, and therefore, proceedings arising from this Act excluded the application of the C.P.C. vis-a-vis Section 24 of the C.P.C. 12. In my view, the said judgments has no application to the present facts and circumstances of the case. Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 clearly indicates that the award should be enforced under the Code of Civil Procedure in the same manner as if it was a decree of the Court. This provision clearly indicates that the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable. Once the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable, Section 24 of the C.P.C. automatically comes into play. 13. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. ———