JUDGMENT Surjit Singh, J.-(Oral)-Heard and gone through the record. 2. By means of the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has sought reversal of two orders, one dated 6.3.2009 of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.8, Shimla and the other dated 2.6.2009 of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tehog. 3. Petitioner filed a suit in the subordinate Courts at Shimla for declaration that money due from him, under a loan agreement, already stood paid to the defendant, except a very small amount and that the action of the respondent-defendant in seizing the vehicle, which he had purchased by raising loan from it, was unwarranted and illegal. He pleaded that the documents, in possession of the defendant regarding the loan transaction, had never been executed by him, but his signatures had been obtained on blank papers by practising fraud upon him. 4. It appears that by an administrative order dated 13.1.2009, learned District Judge ordered transfer of certain cases, including the suit of the petitioner from Court No.8 at Shimla to the Court at Theog. Matter was taken up by the Court at Theog. Application was moved by respondent-defendant that the Civil Court did not have jurisdiction in the matter as the agreement contained an arbitration clause and, so, the plaint was liable to be returned. That application was allowed by the Civil Judge, Theog, vide order dated 2.6.2009. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of District Judge, transferring the case from Shimla to Theog, is illegal and without jurisdiction, because the Court at Theog did not have the jurisdiction in the matter and it were the Courts at Shimla alone, which had the jurisdiction. I have considered the submission. Civil Court at Theog is also a Court for the entire District of Shimla, as the Presiding Officer of the said Court has been conferred with powers to try civil matters not only in respect of the area falling in Theog Sub Division of Shimla District , but in respect of entire area of Shimla District and, therefore, it cannot be said that the case has been transferred to a Court, which does not have jurisdiction over Shimla town, where cause of action allegedly took place and the respondent-defendant has its branch office. Hence, the petition, so far as the order of transfer is concerned, is without merit. Consequently, it is dismissed. 6. As regards the prayer for setting aside the order regarding return of plaint, on the ground that there is an arbitration clause, suffice it to say that the order is appealable. Learned counsel submits that there was no agreement and that the documents of agreement, relied upon by the defendant, are vitiated by fraud, played upon the defendant and, therefore, the learned Civil Judge was not justified in returning the plaint on the basis of arbitration clause in the alleged document. 7. In a petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, question of fact, like the one raised by the petitioner, which requires a full-fledged trial, cannot be gone into. 8. In view of the above stated position, prayer for quashing the second order, i.e. order regarding return of plaint, also merits rejection. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. Petitioner may, if so, advised, assail the order of return of plaint by filing a separate appeal.