JUDGMENT Brojendra Prasad Katakey, J. 1. These petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arise out of the orders passed by the learned District Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati, whereby and whereunder the Petitioners are directed to take required steps for transfer of the case to any other Principal Civil Court within the meaning of Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (in short the Act) reclusing himself from the proceeding in Misc. (Arb.) Case Nos. 168/2001 and 501/2003. Since identical question of law, namely, whether the Court of the Addl. District Judge is also the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district within the meaning of Court as defined under Section 2(1)(e) of the Act, is involved in both the petitions, those are taken up for consideration and disposal together. 2. The Petitioners in CRP No. 106/2009 filed an application on 04.04.2001 under Section 9 of the Act seeking interim measures before the learned District Judge, Kamrup at Guwahati against the present Respondents which has been registered as Misc. (Arb.) Case No. 168/2001. The proceeding was subsequently allotted to the learned Ad-hoc Additional District Judge for disposal. Being aggrieved by the non-disposal of such application, the Petitioners filed an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, registered as W.P.(C) No. 8488/2005, which was disposed of vide order dated 14.12.2005 directing the said Court to dispose of the said application within a period of 4(four) weeks. The Respondents being aggrieved by a subsequent order dated 30.08.2006 passed in the said proceeding by the learned Additional District Judge No. 4, Ad-hoc, Kamrup at Guwahati rejecting the application filed under Order VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, read with Section 9 of the Act, for striking out the names of some of the opposite parties therein filed another application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, registered as CRP No. 345 of 2006. The said CRP has been disposed of vide order dated 01.11.2006 setting aside the said order dated 30.08.2006 in so far as it relates to the rejection of the prayer for striking out the names of opposite party Nos. 4, 5 and 6 therein and the learned Court below was directed to decide the application filed under Section 9 in accordance with law expeditiously and without granting any adjournment unless such adjournment becomes indispensable in the interest of justice. 4, 5 and 6 therein and the learned Court below was directed to decide the application filed under Section 9 in accordance with law expeditiously and without granting any adjournment unless such adjournment becomes indispensable in the interest of justice. The learned Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, however, vide order dated 21.03.2007 reclused himself from the proceeding by declining to take up the matter due to some personal inconvenience and the case record was put up before the learned District Judge for necessary order and accordingly the proceeding was taken up by the learned District Judge in terms of the order dated 08.05.2007 passed in the said proceeding transferring the same to his Court. The learned District Judge, however, vide order dated 02.03.2009 reclused himself from taking up the matter as the parties to the proceeding are known to him personally and directed the parties to take necessary steps as the proceeding cannot be adjudicated by any Civil Court of a grade inferior to Principal Civil Court. 3. The Respondents in CRP No. 107/2009 filed an application under Section 34 of the Act, which has been registered as Misc. (Arb.) Case No. 501/2003 against the order dated 22.06.2003 passed by the sole arbitrator in Misc. Case No. 1 of 2003 arising out of Arbitration Case No. 2 of 2002, granting an interim award. Another application under Section 9 of the Act, registered as Misc. Case No. 545/2005, has been filed in the said Misc. (Arb.) Case No. 501/2003, by the Petitioners in the present revision petition seeking the interim order. The learned District Judge, however, vide order passed on 02.03.2009, reclused himself from taking up the proceeding on the ground that the parties to the proceeding are known to him personally. 4. The Petitioners, therefore, have approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for direction to the learned District Judge to transfer the proceeding to the learned Additional District Judge, which according to the Petitioners is also a Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction within the meaning of Section 2(1)(e) of the Act, since the learned District Judge has reclused himself from taking up the matters on the grounds stated above. 5. I have heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned Sr. Counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. O.P. Bhati, learned Counsel for the Respondents, in both the revision petitions. 6. Mr. 5. I have heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned Sr. Counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. O.P. Bhati, learned Counsel for the Respondents, in both the revision petitions. 6. Mr. Sahewalla, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners, referring to the definition of 'Court' in Section 2(1)(e) of the Act, as well as Section 8 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 (in short 1887 Act) has submitted that since the Additional District Judges are vested with the power of Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction and they have the jurisdiction to dispose of such matters as may be allotted by the District Judge and empowered to discharge any of the functions of a District Judge which the District Judge may assign to them and the said Civil Court being not the Civil Court of a grade inferior to the Court of the District Judge, the Court of the learned Additional District Judge would also be the 'Court' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(e) of the Act. Referring to the provisions contained in Section 42 of the Act, which lays down the jurisdiction of the Court, it has further been submitted that it is not that it is the District Judge who alone can deal with the application filed under the provisions of the Act to the exclusion of the Additional District Judge and the District Judge can transfer the proceeding, if the business of the Court so requires, to the Additional District Judge for disposal. Mr. Sahewalla referring to a division bench judgment of this Court in Sagar Chaudhury and other vs. Nabin Ch. Chaudhury and other reported in AIR 1970 Gau 111 , wherein it is held that the 'District Judge' under Section 2(bb) of the Succession Act, 1925 also includes the Additional District Judge and has jurisdiction to grant probate of the Will under Section 264(1) of the said Act, has submitted that the Court of the learned Additional District Judge appointed under Section 6(1) of the 1887 Act is deemed to be a division Court of the Court of District Judge and not a separate and distinct Court of its own and in no case inferior to the Court of the District Judge and hence the learned District Judge, having reclused himself from taking up the proceedings, ought to have transferred the said proceedings to the Court of the learned Additional District Judge for disposal. 7. Mr. Bhati, learned Counsel for the Respondents, on the contrary, referring to the definition of 'Court' in Section 2(1)(e) of the Act, has submitted that it is only the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district and in the present case the Court of the District Judge, Kamrup at Guwahati only, has the jurisdiction to decide any proceeding under the provisions of the Act and not the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, which is a Civil Court of a grade inferior to the District Judge. Mr. Bhati has submitted that Section 3 of the 1887 Act which stipulates the classes of Civil Court amply demonstrates that the Additional District Judge is a Civil Court inferior to the District Judge, who can decide any proceeding only if the District Judge assigns the same to him in exercise of the power conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 8 of 1887 Act. Referring to the provisions of Section42 of the Act, it has further been submitted by Mr. Bhati that once the application has been filed in the Court of the District Judge, it is the said Court which can alone deal with such application and no other Court, as the said provisions provides that the Court in which such application has been filed, alone shall have the jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and the arbitral proceedings shall have to be made in that Court and in no other Court. Mr. Bhati, therefore, submits that the Petitioners have no other alternative, but to take appropriate steps for transfer of the proceedings from the Court of the learned District Judge at Guwahati to any other competent Court of other district, since the learned District Judge, Kamrup at Guwahati reclused himself from taking up the proceedings. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the pleadings as well as the various orders passed. 9. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the pleadings as well as the various orders passed. 9. Section 2(1)(e) of the Act defines 'Court' as under:- 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 Civil Court, or any Court of Small Causes. 10. An application filed under Section 9 of the Act seeking interim measures or an application for setting aside the arbitral award has to be filed before and decided by the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district which 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. The Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district, however, does not include any Civil Court of a grade inferior to such Principal Civil Court, or any Court of small causes. Any Principal Civil Court which is inferior to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district or any Court of small causes, therefore, are excluded from exercising the jurisdiction under the provisions of the Act. 11. The question which arises for consideration in the present proceedings is whether the Additional District Judge is a Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district or is a Civil Court of a grade inferior to such Principal Civil Court. 12. The 1887 Act has been promulgated to consolidate and amend the law relating to Civil Courts in Bengal, the North-Western Provinces and Assam. The provision of the Act has been extended to the State of Assam by the Assam Act VIII of 1947. Section 3 of the said Act stipulates various classes of Civil Court, namely:- (i) The Court of the District Judge (ii) The Court of the Additional Judge (iii) The Court of the Assistant District Judge (iv) The Court of the Munsiff 13. Section 3 of the said Act stipulates various classes of Civil Court, namely:- (i) The Court of the District Judge (ii) The Court of the Additional Judge (iii) The Court of the Assistant District Judge (iv) The Court of the Munsiff 13. Section 6 of the said Act authorizes the State Government, or as the case may be, the High Court to fill up the vacancy in the Court of District Judge or Subordinate District Judge or appoint the Additional District Judge or Subordinate Judges. Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the said Act empowers the State Government, having consulted with the High Court to appoint. Additional Judges as may be required when the business pending before any District Judge requires the aid of any Additional Judges for its speedy disposal. Sub-section (2) thereof provides that the Additional Judges so appointed shall discharge any of the functions, of a District Judge which the District Judge may assign to them, and, in the discharge of those functions they shall exercise the same powers as the District Judge. For sake of convenience Section 3, Section 6 and Section 8 of 1887 Act are reproduced below: 3. Classes of Courts. There shall be the following classes of Civil Courts under this Act, namely:- (1) The Court of the District Judge (2) The Court of the Additional Judge (3) The Court of the Assistant District Judge (4) The Court of the Munsiff 6. Vacancies among District or Subordinate Judges. (1) Whenever the Court of District Judge or Subordinate Judge is vacant by reason of the death, resignation or removal of the Judge or other cause, or whenever an increase in the number of District or Subordinate Judges has been made under the provisions of Section 4, the State Government, or as the case may be, the High Court may fill up the vacancy or appoint the Additional District Judge or Subordinate Judges. (2) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent a State Government from appointing a District Judge or Subordinate Judge to discharge for such period as it thinks fit, in addition to the functions devolving on him as such District Judge, or Subordinate Judge, all or any of the functions of another District Judge, or Subordinate Judge, as the case may be. 8. 8. Additional Judges.- (1) When the business pending before any District Judge requires the aid of Additional Judges for its speedy disposal, the State Government may, having consulted with the High Court, appoint such Additional Judges as may be requisite. (2) Additional Judges so appointed shall discharge any of the functions, of a District Judge which the District Judge may assign to them, and, in the discharge of those functions they shall exercise the same powers as the District Judge. 14. Section 6(1) of 1887 Act empowers the State Government to appoint Additional District Judge whenever the circumstances mentioned therein require for such appointment. As observed in Sagar Chaudhury (supra), in Assam there is no separate Court of the Additional Judge and the Additional District Judges are appointed in an area under Section 6(1) of the Act to discharge the powers of Principal Civil Court, though Section 3 of the said Act provides a separate class of Court, namely, the Court of Additional Judge. While making such appointment under Section 6(1) of the 1887 Act, on the recommendation of the High Court, the Additional District Judges are conferred with the powers of the District Judge within the local limits of their respective jurisdiction and it is a division Court of the Court of District Judge and is not a separate and distinct Court of its own. 15. A Civil Court can be said to be a grade inferior to the Principal Civil Court within the meaning of the 'Court' under Section 2(1)(e) of the Act, if such Court is subordinate to the Court of the Principal Civil Court within a judicial system, against whose order the appeal/revision lies to the Principal Civil Court. The Additional District Judge as appointed under the provisions of 1887 Act is not a Court subordinate to the District Judge and the said Court cannot also be termed as Civil Court of a grade inferior to the Principal Civil Court as the Additional District Judge discharge same power and functions of a District Judge and its decisions are neither appealable nor revisable by the Court of the District Judge. 16. 16. The Apex Court in Kuldip Singh vs. State of Punjab and other reported in AIR 1956 SC 391 considering the provisions contained in Punjab Courts Act, 1918 has held that as under the said Act there is no provision for appointment of Additional District Judge or of an Additional Judge to the District Court and the Court contemplated under the said Act is the Court of the Additional Judge which is in the nature of a special tribunal set up for a special purpose and invested with the powers of a District Judge when dealing with the matters specially entrusted to its jurisdiction, the Additional Judge appointed under the said Act is not a division Court of the Court of the District Judge but a separate and district Court of its own, as the Additional Judge's functions are confined to the hearing of the appeals and he cannot exercise original jurisdiction. The Apex Court, however, has observed that the District Judge of a District Court, when makes an administrative allotment of work among the Judges of his Court, their jurisdiction and powers are not effected, provided the Act contemplates appointment of Additional District Judge. 17. The 1887 Act, as discussed above, contemplates appointment of Additional District Judge under Section 6(1) and such Additional District Judges are appointed under the said provision conferring original civil jurisdiction. These Court, however, are to deal with the cases as allotted by the District Judge and their jurisdiction is not limited to hearing of appeals only. Such Courts are division Court of Court of District Judge and not a separate and distinct Court of its own. Therefore, Court of the Additional District Judge must be held to be a division Court of the Court of the District Judge and hence it has jurisdiction under the provisions of the Act to deal with such applications, once such proceedings are allotted by the District Judge of the concerned district. The provisions contained in Section 42 of the Act does not provide that it is only the District Judge, who can decide the proceeding under the provisions of the Act. The provisions contained in Section 42 of the Act does not provide that it is only the District Judge, who can decide the proceeding under the provisions of the Act. It provides that where with respect to an arbitration agreement any application under Part-I of the Act 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 The Court defined in Section 2(1)(e) of the Act also includes the Court of the Additional District Judge which is also a Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussion the learned District Judge is directed to transfer the proceedings to the Court of the learned Additional District Judge for disposal, since he reclused himself from hearing of the said proceedings. 19. The learned Additional District Judge, on receipt of the records, shall decide the same as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of the records. The parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge on 15.06.2009. The revision petitions are accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. No cost. Petition allowed.