JUDGMENT Arun Bhansali, J. - This revision petition is directed against order dated 27. 08. 2016 passed by Additional District Judge No. 4, Jodhpur Metro, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC read with Section 151 CPC and Sections 2(e) & 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the Act') has been disposed of leaving it open for the petitioner to raise objection at appropriate stage. 2. The respondent aggrieved by award dated 08. 01. 2016 filed application under Section 34 of the Act. 3. The petitioner filed application under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC, inter alia, indicating that the Court at Jodhpur lacks territorial jurisdiction to deal with the matter, inasmuch as, as per the submissions made by the petitioner, cause of action in terms of Section 2(1)(e) of the Act arose at Merta and, therefore, only Courts at Merta had the territorial jurisdiction to deal with the application filed by the respondents and the Courts at Jodhpur had no territorial jurisdiction to deal with the said aspect. 4. The application was opposed by the respondents by filing reply. 5. After hearing the parties, the trial court while disposing of the application observed as under:- 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court committed error in disposing of the application without determining the issue raised before it. It is submitted that in view of specific provisions of Section 2(1)(e) of the Act, the present application under Section 34 of the Act was not maintainable at Jodhpur and only Courts at Merta had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the said application and, therefore, the same should have been allowed by the trial court. 7. Further submissions have been made that no reason has been indicated by the trial court for postponing the decision on the issue and disposing of the application. The observations made that as the matter was at the preliminary stage, without the record of the award, the disposal of the application would be premature, the Court could have called for the record and thereafter decide the application. The determination made is ex facie contrary to the settled legal position and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. 8. The determination made is ex facie contrary to the settled legal position and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the present revision petition itself is not maintainable, inasmuch as, the trial court has simply ordered that the issue would be considered at the appropriate stage and, therefore, the revision petition is not maintainable. Further submissions were made that in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, the revision petition under Section 115 CPC is not maintainable. Reliance was place on Shiv Shakti Co-Op. Housing Society, Nagpur v. Ms. Swaraj Developers & Ors. , 2003 WLC(SC)CVL 688. 9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. The application under Section 34 of the Act could only be filed before the Court having jurisdiction in terms of Section 2(1) (e) of the Act. The petitioner by filing the present application under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC questioned the territorial jurisdiction of Courts at Jodhpur to determine the application. In terms of provisions of Section 21 CPC in every case where the objection regarding territorial jurisdiction is to be raised, the same has to be raised at the first instance and the same was done by the petitioner. Once the issue was raised pertaining to territorial jurisdiction, in a case of present nature, wherein, the award has been passed by the Arbitrator resolving the dispute between the parties, there was hardly any aspect of the mater, which required the trial court to wait for determining the said issue and, therefore, the observations made by the trial court that the proceedings were at preliminary stage and without going through the record of the arbitration, disposal of such an application would be premature and disposal of the application keeping it open for the petitioner to raise the issue at appropriate stage cannot be sustained in any form. If the Court felt requirement of the record of arbitration, the same could have been summoned by it and in fact there was no urgency for the Court to decide the application in absence of the record if the requirement was felt by it and thereafter postponing the issue without any appropriate cause, cannot be appreciated. 10. If the Court felt requirement of the record of arbitration, the same could have been summoned by it and in fact there was no urgency for the Court to decide the application in absence of the record if the requirement was felt by it and thereafter postponing the issue without any appropriate cause, cannot be appreciated. 10. So far as the plea raised by the respondents pertaining to maintainability of the application is concerned, looking to the nature of disposal made by trial court, wherein the application has been disposed of only with a view to postpone its decision on merits, this Court irrespective of the present revision petition, even suo moto, could have exercised the powers, in view thereof, the objection has no substance. 11. Consequently, the revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The order dated 27. 08. 2016 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the trial court with a direction to hear and decide the application filed by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date the order is placed before it. 12. In case the record of Arbitrator is felt necessary by the trial court, the same be summoned and then application may be decided.