Judgment :- This Civil Revision Petition arises out of an order passed by the Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli directing the return of the Original Petition challenging an interim Arbitration Award, for presentation to the appropriate Court in terms of Section 42 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 2. Heard Mr. P.S. Sundaram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T.A. Srinivasan, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The petitioner and the respondent entered into an agreement to carry out some subcontract work in respect of construction of Adivinainar Koil Masonry Dam across Tamiraparani River Basin at Mekarai Village, Shenkottai Taluk, Tirunelveli District. Disputes arose between the petitioner and the respondent in the Revision Petition filed on Application in O.A.No.7 of 2003, under Section 9 seeking an interim order of injunction restraining the petitioner herein from invoking bank guarantee. That Application was filed on the Original Side of this Court at Chennai. Initially, an interim order of injunction was granted, but the same was vacated on an Application filed by the petitioner herein in A.No.1255 of 2003. 4. Thereafter, the respondent herein filed O.P.No.538 of 2003, under Section 11 of the Act and the Honble Chief Justice passed an order dated 14. 2005, appointing an Arbitrator. 5. The Arbitrator entered reference and passed an interim award dated 112. 2006, directing the petitioner herein to deposit a sum of Rs.56,63,990/- pending the main proceedings. As against the said interim award, the petitioner herein filed O.P.No.51 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli under Section 34 to set it aside. 6. In the said Arbitration O.P.No.51 of 2007, the respondent filed an Application in I.A.No.53 of 2007, for appropriate orders under Section 42. This Application was allowed by the Principal District Court, Tirunelveli by the order under Revision dated 29. 2007. .7. Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 reads as follows: ."42. Jurisdiction. – Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Part or in any 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 and in no other Court". 8. 8. There is no dispute about the fact that an Application under Section 9 and an Application under Section 11 of the Act were filed before the Principal Bench of this Court, at Chennai. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Rodeman India Ltd. v. International Trade Expo Centre, AIR 2006 SC 3456 : (2006) 11 SCC 651 : (2006) 4 MLJ 318, the Chief Justice acting under Section 11 of the Act, is not a Court within the meaning of Section 2(1)(e) of the Act. Therefore, the fact that the Arbitrator was appointed by the Chief Justice in O.P.No.538 of 2003, at Chennai may not be a deciding factor insofar as Section 42 is concerned. .9. However, insofar as the Application under Section 9 is concerned, Mr. P.S. Sundaram, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Original Side of this Court at Madras had no jurisdiction to entertain the Section 9 Application, as no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Court at Chennai. The petitioner herein is in Mumbai, the respondent herein has his office in Bangalore and the site in which work had to be carried out is in Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District. Therefore, neither the parties to the litigation were at Chennai nor any part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Courts at Chennai. In such circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Court at Chennai did not have jurisdiction to entertain the Application under Section 9. Since, Section 2(1)(e) defines Court as one having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject matter of the Arbitration, a Court which did not have jurisdiction, cannot be taken to come within the purview of Section 42 merely because it wrongly entertained an Application under Section 9. 10. At the first blush, the above contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to have some force. But, what really has happened in this case is that the Application under Section 9, O.A.No.7 of 2003 was disposed of by the Division Bench in view of the subsequent events. To recapitulate, an ex parte order of injunction was originally granted in O.A.No.7 of 2003. The petitioner herein entered appearance and filed an Application to vacate the injunction in A.No.1255 of 2003. To recapitulate, an ex parte order of injunction was originally granted in O.A.No.7 of 2003. The petitioner herein entered appearance and filed an Application to vacate the injunction in A.No.1255 of 2003. In that Application, the question of jurisdiction was not raised by the petitioner herein. According to the petitioner, the papers were not at all served on him and there was no compliance with the provisions of Order 39, Rule 3(a) and that therefore there was no occasion for the petitioner to question the jurisdiction. 11. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the question of jurisdiction was not raised in O.A.No.7 of 2003. Against the order of the single Judge, vacating the injunction, two appeals were filed by the present respondent in O.S.A.Nos.154 and 155 of 2003. By the time those appeals came up for hearing, an Arbitrator had already been appointed and he had entered appearance and had also passed an interim award on 112. 2006 in I.A.No.2 of 2006. In view of these developments, the Division Bench simply closed the Application in O.A.No.7 of 2003, without going into any question on merits. Therefore, it is clear that the question of jurisdiction was neither raised nor did it come up for consideration. .12. In the light of the above facts, if we look at Section 42, it is seen that it places an embargo upon any other Court entertaining, any petition. Section 42 contains a non obstante Clause both with regard to anything contained in the Act and with regard to anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. Therefore, what is prescribed in Section 42 is actually de hors Sections 16 to 20, C.P.C. In such circumstances, the Principal District Court, Tirunelveli could not have adjudicated upon the question of jurisdiction of this Court in entertaining O.A.No.7 of 2003, so as to refuse the Application under Section 42. In the given circumstances, the only course of action that was open to the Court below was to allow the Application under Section 42. Therefore, I find nothing wrong in the order of the Court below. Hence this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed. 13. In the given circumstances, the only course of action that was open to the Court below was to allow the Application under Section 42. Therefore, I find nothing wrong in the order of the Court below. Hence this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed. 13. Since the order under Revision is one directing the return of Original Petition Arbitration O.P.No.51 of 2007 for presentation to the proper Court, two weeks time is granted to the petitioner to take return of the papers in the Original Petition from the Principal District Court, Tirunelveli and for re-presenting it before the Original Side of this Court. In other words, the petitioner shall take the returned papers in Arbitration O.P.No.51 of 2007 from the Court below and shall represent them in the original side of this Court in its Principal Bench at Chennai, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Since, in the Execution Proceedings the amount was paid and already transmitted to Bombay and the Sheriff of the Bombay High Court is also said to have realized the money, both parties are directed to maintain status quo for a period of four weeks to enable the petitioners to represent the papers before this Court (at Chennai) and move the Court for appropriate interim orders. If the petitioner could not get any prohibitive interim orders within a period of four weeks from the Court where the papers are represented, further proceedings can be initiated by the respondent.