Judgment : Short question that arises for our consideration in this writ appeal is whether in a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) a Civil Court is required to frame an issue as provided under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 2. Petitioner herein had filed a petition under Section 34 of the Act before the City Civil Judge, Bangalore in Arbitration suit No.53 of 2005 against the respondents to set aside the award dated 14-09-2005 passed by Justice K. Shivashankar Bhat. The said suit is Contested by the contesting respondents. An award is passed against the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.57,60,00,000 /- with interest on the above amount from 01-04-2005 till the date of award along with costs and stamp duty and also awarded future interest at 12 % p.a. from the date of award till the date of judgment. 3. In the suit appellant filed an application under Order 14, Rules 1 and 3 of the CPC requesting the Court to frame the issues and to dispose of the suit in accordance with law treating it as a original suit by granting permission for the appellant to let in evidence. Application filed under Order 11 was resisted by the respondent. Learned City Civil Judge, Bangalore, by his order dated 12-09-2006 Considering the scope of Section 34 of the Act held that there is no necessity for him to frame the issues as it is not a original suit and in such arbitration suit only the Court of required to consider the points which may arise for consideration of the Court. Accordingly, he dismissed the application 12-09-2006 4. Challenging the same, appellant filed a writ petition in W.P. No 16352 of 2006. Learned Single Judge after elaborately considering the scope of suit under Section 34 of the Act and also provisions of CPC, came to the conclusion that there is no necessity for a Civil Court to frame the issues in an application filed under Section 34 of the Act and accordingly he dismissed the writ petition by his order dated 12-09-2008 Challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in confirming the order of the Trial Court, present appeal is filed. 5. We have heard the counsel for the appellant. 6. 5. We have heard the counsel for the appellant. 6. Having heard the Counsel for the appellant, we do not see any error committed by the learned Single Judge for the following reasons.- Though the application filed under Section 34 of the Act is registered as a suit, still the scope of interference under Section 34 of the Act is very limited. As rightly pointed out by the learned Single Judge, such suit cannot be treated as an adversarial suit to adjudicate the matter in controversy by recording the evidence. It is no doubt true that in arbitration proceeding the Court has to follow the provisions of the CPC as far as possible. But to what extent such provisions can be applied has to be considered by a Court considering the nature and scope of enquiry in that suit. Since the learned Single Judge as well as the City Civil Judge, Bangalore, Considering the scope of Section 34 of the Act have come to the conclusion that in such suit there is no necessity to frame the issues, we do not see any merits in this appeal. 7. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed.