JUDGMENT : Ashis Kumar Chakraborty, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") praying for transfer of Misc. Case No. 274 of 2006, an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Arbitration Act of 1996"), pending before the 11th Court of the Additional District Judge at Alipore, to this Court. 2. In terms of a contract between the petitioner and the opposite party, the opposite party was engaged to carry out certain work at the Malda Unit of the petitioner. The said contract contained an arbitration agreement. 3. The opposite party raised certain disputes alleged to have arisen out of the said contract and the petitioner appointed an Arbitrator. However, by orders dated September 16, 1998 and November 17, 1998 a learned Single Judge of this Court removed the said Arbitrator and directed the General Manager of the petitioner to appoint one particular retired engineer, as the Arbitrator. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner appointed said retired engineer as the Arbitrator. On June 16, 2006, the Arbitrator passed an award directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 23,05,800/- to the opposite party within 45 days, failing which the said amount will carry simple interest at the rate of eighteen per cent (18%) per annum. The petitioner challenged the said award by filing the said Misc. Case No. 274 of 2006, (hereinafter referred to as "the Misc. Case") before the 11th Court of the learned Additional District Judge at Alipore (hereinafter referred to as "the Additional District Judge"). In the objection filed in the Misc. Case the opposite party raised a point that since the Arbitrator was appointed in terms of the order passed by this Court in an application filed under the Arbitration Act of 1996, in view of Section 42 of the said Act, the learned Additional District Judge did not have the jurisdiction to try the Misc. Case. By an order dated January 03, 2008, the learned Additional District Judge rejected the said contention of the opposite party. However, in an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the opposite party, by an order dated December 23, 2013 a learned Single Judge of this Court set aside the said order dated January 03, 2008 passed by the Additional District Judge. However, in an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the opposite party, by an order dated December 23, 2013 a learned Single Judge of this Court set aside the said order dated January 03, 2008 passed by the Additional District Judge. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner filed an application before the learned Additional District Judge to withdraw/return the Misc. Case No. 274 of 2006 but the same is pending disposal till this date. In the meantime, the opposite party had taken steps to execute the award before the Barasat Court. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed this application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 5. Mr. Tilak Bose, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that in the instant case there is no dispute that the Arbitrator had held the arbitral sittings at a place within the jurisdiction of the of the learned Additional District Judge, the opposite party carries on business at Tollygunge Road within the jurisdiction of the Alipore District Court and the petitioner bona fide filed the Misc. Case under Section 34 of the arbitration Act of 1996 before the learned Additional District Judge. According to him, by the said order dated December 23, 2013, this Court held that since the Arbitrator was appointed by this Court, in view of Section 42 of the 1996 Act, this Court alone has the jurisdiction to decide the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act of 1996 and as such in the interest of justice, this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") would transfer the said Misc. Case from the Court of the Additional District Judge to itself. 6. Mr. Bose submitted that under Section 24(1)(b) of the Code, this Court has the power and jurisdiction to withdraw any suit, appeal or any other proceeding pending in any Court subordinate to it and try and dispose of the same. According to him, the words "other proceeding" appearing in Section 24 of the Code includes any proceeding under the Arbitration Act of 1996. In support of such contention, Mr. Bose relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Alakh Kumar Sinha v. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr. According to him, the words "other proceeding" appearing in Section 24 of the Code includes any proceeding under the Arbitration Act of 1996. In support of such contention, Mr. Bose relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Alakh Kumar Sinha v. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr. reported in 2001(2) CLJ 59 where the Division Bench of this Court, held that this Court can suo motu pass an order under Section 24 of the Code for transfer of an application under the Arbitration Act, 1940 from this Court to any other Court. He further cited a decision in the case of Atlanta Ltd. Mumbai v. Executive Engineer Road Department, Panvel (Bhingari) and Anr. reported in 2013(4) Mh.L.J. 601 where a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court held that the word "other proceeding" appearing Section 24 of the Code includes any application under the Arbitration Act of 1996 and the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 24 of the Code can pass an order for transfer of an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act of 1996 from a subordinate Court to itself. Mr. Bose also cited the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Atlanta Ltd., Mumbai reported in (2014) 11 SCC : AIR 2014 SC 1093 and pointed out that by the said decision the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court in the case of Atlanta Ltd. Mumbai v. Executive Engineer Road Department, Panvel that the High Court, under Section 24 of the Code, can transfer an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 from a subordinate Court to itself. 7. Mr. Bose also relied upon sub-Section 5 of Section 24 of the Code which came into effect from February 01, 1997, by way of amendment and submitted that bare reading of the provisions contained in the said sub-Section 5 makes it abundantly clear that a suit or proceeding (which includes any application under the arbitration Act of 1996) may be transferred under Section 24 of the Code from a Court which has no jurisdiction to try the same. Thus, according to him, although by the said order dated December 26, 2013 this Court, in revisional jurisdiction, upheld the contention of the opposite party that the Additional District Judge at Alipore does not have the jurisdiction to deal with the said Misc. Case still in view of the provisions contained in Sub-Section 5 of Section 24 of the Code this Court has the jurisdiction to transfer the Misc. Case as prayed for by the petitioner. In support of such contention, he relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Vivekananda Nidhi and Ors. v. Ashima Goswami reported in AIR 1997 CAL 340 . In the said decision Tarun Chatterjee, J. (as His Lordship then was) held that sub-Section 5 of Section 24 of the Code has been enacted to give wider right to the High Court and to the District Court to transfer a suit pending before an incompetent Court, to a Court which is competent to decide the suit for interest of expedition. 8. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Consolidated Engineering Enterprises v. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department and Ors. reported in (2008) 7 SCC 169 and Union of India & Anr. v. Bhavna Engineering Co. reported in (2008) 13 SCC 546 Mr. Bose submitted that in any event, Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable in an application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act of 1996. Thus, since the petitioner bona fide filed the said Misc. Case before the Additional District Judge at Alipore, even if the petitioner's application pending before the Alipore Court for withdrawal of the said Misc. Case had been disposed of, by this time the petitioner could have filed a fresh application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act of 1996, before the Court, by obtaining benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. He pointed out that in the said decision Union of India and Anr. v. Bhavna Engineering Co. (supra), the Supreme Court after condoning the delay under Section 14 of the Limitation Act transferred the Section 34 application pending before the Additional District Judge Gwalior to the Bombay High Court being the competent Court having jurisdiction to decide the said Section 34 of the application. 9. v. Bhavna Engineering Co. (supra), the Supreme Court after condoning the delay under Section 14 of the Limitation Act transferred the Section 34 application pending before the Additional District Judge Gwalior to the Bombay High Court being the competent Court having jurisdiction to decide the said Section 34 of the application. 9. It was further contended on behalf of the petitioner that pendency of any application before the Additional District Judge, Alipore under Rule 10 or Rule 10A Order 7 of the Code does not prevent this Court from exercising power under Section 24 of the Code to direct transfer of the Misc. Case from the Court or the Additional District Judge, to this Court. In support of such contention, Mr. Bose cited a decision of the Allhabad High Court in the case of Amarnath Swami v. Ramdeo reported in 2000 (39) ALR 62 and another decision of Swatanter Kumar, J. (as His Lordship then was) of the Delhi High Court in the case of Aviat Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Magna Laboratories (Gujrat) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. reported in AIR 2006 Del 115 . In both the said decisions, the Allhabad High Court and the Delhi High Court held that sub-Section 5 of Section 24 of the Code makes abundantly clear that the District Judge or the High Court while exercising power under Section 24 of the Code is also empowered to transfer a suit or proceeding from a Court which has no jurisdiction to it and pendency of an application under Order 7, Rule 10 or Rule 10A the Code is no bar on the power of the District Judge or the High Court to transfer any suit or proceeding under Section 24 of the Code. 10. Mr. Prabal Mukherjee, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the opposite party award holder, however, raised serious objection to the maintainability of this application. He further urged that in any event, when by the said order dated December 23, 2013 this Court upheld the contention of the opposite party award holder that the learned Additional District Judge, lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the said Misc. Case and the petitioner has already filed an application before the Additional District Judge, for withdrawal/return of the Misc. Case, this application is not maintainable. According to, Mr. Case and the petitioner has already filed an application before the Additional District Judge, for withdrawal/return of the Misc. Case, this application is not maintainable. According to, Mr. Mukherjee, the petitioner did not file this application before the opposite party award holder's contention with regard to the lack of jurisdiction of the Additional District Judge at Alipore was upheld by this Court in the said revisional application and after the said order dated December 23, 2013 passed by this Court a right has accrued in favour of the opposite party award holder and as such this application is not maintainable. 11. He cited a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kulwinder Kaur v. Kandi Friends Education Trust and Ors. reported in (2008) 3 SCC 659 , and relied on paragraph 23 of the said decision where the Supreme Court held as follows: "Reading Sections 24 and 25 of the code together and keeping in view various judicial pronouncements, certain broad propositions as what may constitute a ground for transfer have been laid down by courts. They are balance of convenience or inconvenience to the plaintiff or the defendant or witnesses; convenience or inconvenience of a particular place of trial having regard to the nature of evidence on the points involved in the suit; issues raised by the parties; reasonable apprehension in the mind of the litigant that he might not get justice in the court in which the suit is pending; important questions of law involved or a considerable section of public interested in the litigation; "interest of justice" demanding for transfer of suit, appeal or other proceeding, etc. above are some of the instances which are germane in considering the question of transfer of a suit, appeal or other proceeding. They are, however, illustrative in nature and by no means be treated as exhaustive." 12. According to Mr. Mukherjee, in any event, the present application of the petitioner does not fulfil any of the aforesaid grounds laid down by the Supreme Court for invoking jurisdiction under Section 24 of the Code. The last contention of Mr.Mukherjee was that this application has been filed on the Appellate Side of this Court, but the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act of 1996 even if transferred to this Court, cannot be heard on the Appellate Side and as such this application is not maintainable. 13. The last contention of Mr.Mukherjee was that this application has been filed on the Appellate Side of this Court, but the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act of 1996 even if transferred to this Court, cannot be heard on the Appellate Side and as such this application is not maintainable. 13. I have considered the submissions of the counsel appearing for both the petitioner and the opposite party award holder. In the said case of Alakh Kumar Sinha, (supra) cited by Mr. Bose, the Division Bench held that Section 24 of the Code is applicable to an application under the Arbitration Act, 1940. However, with regard to the question whether the expression "proceeding" appearing in Section 24 of the Code includes any application under the Arbitration Act, 1996 it would be profitable to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Chandra Agarwal and Anr. v. the State of U.P. and Anr. reported in AIR 1966 SC 1888 where it was held that from the expression "proceeding" used in Section 24 of the Code it would appear to be something going on in a Court, in relation to the adjudication of a dispute other than a suit or appeal and the said word includes within it, all matters coming up for judicial adjudication and not to confine it to civil proceeding alone. In the said case it was further held that a proceeding before a Civil Court arising out of a reference to it under Section 146(1), Criminal Procedure Code can be transferred by the District Judge under Section 24 of the Code because it is in any case a proceeding. From the provisions contained in the Arbitration Act, 1996 it is evident that except an application for appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11 which is to be filed before the Chief Justice of the High Court of the State, all other applications under Sections 9, 14, 15 and 34 are to be filed before "Court" as defined in Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration Act 1996. For convenience Section 2(e) of the said Act is set out. For convenience Section 2(e) of the said Act is set out. "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 s suit, but does not include any civil court of a grade inferior to such principal Civil Court, or any Court of Small Causes." 14. From a bare reading of the aforesaid definition of Court in Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration Act, 1996, it is evident that it is the Civil Court of the original jurisdiction in a District and the High Court in exercise of its original civil jurisdiction have the jurisdiction to decide the question forming the subject-matter of the arbitration. Thus, the term "Court" in Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration Act, 1996, is defined to mean a Civil Court and as such except an application under Section 11, all other applications under the Arbitration Act, 1996, including an application under Section 34 are applications before a Civil Court. It was held by the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Chandra Agarwal (supra) that the words "proceeding" in Section 24 of the Code should be given a comprehensive meaning so as to include within it all matters coming up for judicial adjudication and not to confine civil proceeding alone. Thus, in view of the definition of Court in Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration Act, 1996 to mean Civil Court, there cannot be any doubt that an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 is a "proceeding" under Section 24 of the Code. Accordingly, I am in respectful agreement with the decision of the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court in the case of Atlanta Ltd. Mumbai (supra) holding that an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 can be transferred by a High Court from any Court inferior to it under Section 24 of the Code. Further, in the case of Executive Engineer, Road Development Division No. III Panvel (supra) the Supreme Court upheld the said decision of the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court that an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 can be transferred under Section 24 of the Code. 15. Further, in the case of Executive Engineer, Road Development Division No. III Panvel (supra) the Supreme Court upheld the said decision of the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court that an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 can be transferred under Section 24 of the Code. 15. Once it is held that this Court can exercise power under Section 24 of the Code to transfer an application, under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996, to it from any Court inferior to it, it is now to be considered whether the facts of this case necessitate the prayer of the petitioner in this application to be allowed or not. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the petitioner filed the Misc. Case (application for setting of the award of the Arbitrator) before the Additional District Judge within the time period of 90 days specified in Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act, 1996. However, by the said order dated December 23, 2013, this Court, in exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution, held that in the instant case, Section 42 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 came into play and the Misc. Case could be filed before this Court alone and the learned Additional District Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the said application. Now, sub- Section 5 of Section 24, in clear and unambiguous term confers jurisdiction upon the District Judge and the High Court to transfer to itself any suit or appeal or proceeding from a Court which has no jurisdiction to try the suit or appeal or the proceeding, as the case may be. Thus, in view of the clear provisions contained in sub-Section 5 of Section 24 of the Code, this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the application of the petitioner praying for transfer of the Misc. Case, from the learned Court of the Additional District Judge, Alipore to itself. 16. In view of insertion of sub-Section (5) in Section 24 of the Code, when a suit or proceeding is filed in a Court of incompetent jurisdiction not only the provisions contained in Order 7 Rules 10 or 10A (when the defendant in a suit or the respondent in an application has already appeared) but the provisions under Section 24 of the Code are also applicable. In this case, by the said order dated December 23, 2013, this Court, in revisional jurisdiction held that the learned Additional District Judge lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the said Misc. Case. Thus, only after passing of the said order dated December 23, 2013 the petitioner could file the application under Order 7, Rule 10A of the Code or this application under Section 24 of the Code. There is nothing in the provisions of Order 7, Rule 10 or 10A which either expressly or by necessary application can be construed to be a bar to the maintainability of this application under Section 24 of the Code. Thus, I am in respectful agreement with the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Aviat Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Amar Nath Swami (supra) that when a suit or proceeding is filed before a Court of incompetent jurisdiction, the remedies of the plaintiff or the applicant lies both under the provisions of Order 7 Rules 10 or 10A as also Section 24 of the Code. Accordingly, I find no merit in the contention of opposite party award holder that since the petitioner has filed the application for withdrawal/return of the Misc. Case from the Court of the Additional District Judge it is not entitled to obtain any order in this application. 17. In this application the petitioner has categorically stated that after passing of the said order dated December 23, 2013, it filed the application before the Additional District Judge withdraw the Misc. Case and return of the original award, but in view of inordinate delay in disposal of the said application by the Court of the Additional district Judge the opposite party has taken steps to execute the award before the Barasat Court which has necessitated the expeditious disposal of the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. In paragraph 23 of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kulwinder Kaur (supra) relied by Mr. Mukherjee, the Supreme Court categorically held that one of the grounds on which the District Judge and the High Court can exercise jurisdiction directing for transfer of the suit appeal or other proceeding under Section 24 of the Code is "interest of justice". Mukherjee, the Supreme Court categorically held that one of the grounds on which the District Judge and the High Court can exercise jurisdiction directing for transfer of the suit appeal or other proceeding under Section 24 of the Code is "interest of justice". The opposite party award holder could not disclose, what prejudice it would suffer or what right would be violated, if the Misc. Case is transferred to this Court. In the instant case, but for the passing of the said order dated December 23, 2013 by this Court in the revisional jurisdiction, the petitioner had no reason to file the said application before the Additional District Judge for withdrawal/return of the Misc. Case or this application under Section 24 of the Code. Even if the petitioner had filed a fresh application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act of 1996 before this Court, as held by the Supreme Court in the said cases of Consolidated Engineering Enterprises (supra) and Bhavna Engineeering Co. (supra), it could claim benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. In the instant case, the petitioner has filed the application before the Additional District Judge for withdrawal/return of the said Misc. Case which is pending disposal for a long time and in the mean time, the opposite party has filed the application for execution of the award passed by the Arbitrator. In these facts, the "interest of justice", one of the grounds for transfer under Section 24 of the Code reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of Kulwinder Kaur (supra) cited by Mr. Mukherjee, demands that the said Misc. Case No. 274 of 2006, that is, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 be transferred from the Court of the Additional District Judge to this Court. 18. With regard to the last contention of Mr. Mukherjee that this application of the petitioner is not maintainable inasmuch as this application has been filed on the Appellate Side of this Court and this Court, on its Appellate Side, do not have the jurisdiction to hear an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996, reference may profitably be made to the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Sri Rangam Municipality v. R.V. Palaniswami Pillai reported in AIR 1951 Madras 807. In paragraph 4 of the said decision, the Division Bench of the Madras High Court held "in our opinion there is nothing in the language of Section 24, of the Code to indicate on which side of this Court the application should be made. In dealing with this question it is important to bear in mind that Section 24 of the Code gives the power of transfer and withdrawal not only to this Court but also to the District Court and it gives such power of transfer and withdrawal not only in respect of suits but also in respect of appeals and other proceedings pending in any Court subordinate to it. It would, therefore, be certainly wrong to say that every application under Section 24 when made to this Court should be made on the original side. Obviously an application to withdraw an appeal pending before a subordinate Court to this Court or to transfer it to any other subordinate Court cannot be made to the Original Side of this Court. It is also obvious that an application to transfer any suit pending in a Subordinate Court to another Subordinate Court for trial cannot be made to this Court on the Original Side because the subordination of Courts can only be to this Court as such and not to the Original Side of this Court. There is nothing in Section 24 to confine its application to Chartered High Courts which alone have ordinary and extraordinary original civil jurisdiction. According to us, the correct position is that an application under Section 24 of the Code should be made to this Court as such in the same manner as it might be made to the District Court and such an application can be validly heard and disposed of by any Judge of this Court deputed by the Chief Justice to hear such applications." The Appellate Side Rules of the Madras High Court, like Rule 1A of Chapter II of the Appellate Side Rules of this Court provide that all Section 24 applications before the High Court shall be heard by a Single Judge. 19. The Division Bench of our High Court in the case of Laxmi Narayan Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Dwip Narayan Singh reported in AIR 1956 CAL 65 : 59 CWN 109 agreed with the aforesaid view of the Madras High Court. 19. The Division Bench of our High Court in the case of Laxmi Narayan Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Dwip Narayan Singh reported in AIR 1956 CAL 65 : 59 CWN 109 agreed with the aforesaid view of the Madras High Court. In the said case the question arose whether the petitioner's prayer for transfer of a suit from Hooghly Court to this Court could be allowed in an application under Section 24 of the Code filed on the Appellate Side of this Court. The Division Bench held that an application for transfer of a suit from a subordinate Court to the Original Side of this Court can be made under Section 24 of the Code. The Division Bench further held that it is true that on such withdrawal, the trial has to take place before a Judge sitting on the Original Side of this Court, but that is no reason why the application cannot be made under Section 24 of the Code. Under Clause 13 of the Letters Patent, this Court can transfer only a suit from a Court subordinate to it and not any appeal or proceeding pending before a subordinate Court. Accordingly it is only under Section 24 of the Code, this Court can transfer the said Misc. Case under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act of 1996 from Court of the Additional District Judge to the Original Side this Court. It is only Rule 1A of Chapter II of the Appellate Side Rules of this Court provides that an application under Section 24 of the code shall be heard by a Single Judge sitting on the Appellate Side and there is no provision in the Original Side Rules of this Court for hearing of any application under Section 24 of the Code. 20. Under Section 24(1)(b) of the Code what this Court does, it first withdraws any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in any Court subordinate to it and then decides to do one of three things. If the Court decides to try and dispose of the same, obviously such a trial or disposal would be on the Original Side of this Court. If it decides to either transfer it to any subordinate Court or to retransfer to the Court from which it was withdrawn, obviously there is no necessity to send the suit to the Original Side of this Court. If it decides to either transfer it to any subordinate Court or to retransfer to the Court from which it was withdrawn, obviously there is no necessity to send the suit to the Original Side of this Court. Authority for this view can be found in the decision of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of Srirangam Municipality (supra). Thus, the last contention raised by the opposite party also fails. 21. To my mind provisions in Section 24 are intended to achieve twin objects of the code, namely expeditious disposal of the case and achievement of ends of justice without causing prejudice to the parties. In the instant case an order transferring the Misc. Case to this Court would cause no prejudice to the opposite party and infringes no legal principle and I see no reason why this application should not be allowed. 22. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition of the petitioner C.O. No. 728 of 2014 is allowed and the Misc. Case No. 274 of 2006 is directed to be transferred from 11th Court of the Additional District Judge at Alipore to the Original Side of this Court. The District Judge, Alipore, 24 Parganas (South) is directed to forthwith transfer the records of Misc. Case No. 274 of 2006 from 11th Court of the Additional District Judge, Alipore to this Court, by Special Messenger, the requisite fees whereof shall be deposited by the petitioner within May 10, 2015. 23. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs. Application allowed.