JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. The instant petitions stand directed against the impugned order(s) of 26.10.2016, rendered by the learned Additional District Judge-II Kangra at Dharamshala, upon Execution No(s). 2-D/2014/2012, 1-D/2014/2012, 4-D/2014/2012, 6-D/2014/2012, 5-D/2014/2012, 3-D/2014/2012, whereby it, while placing reliance upon a judgment rendered by this Court in Jasvinder Kaur v. Tata Motors Finance Ltd., (2013) LawSuit(HP) 649, hence dismissed the execution petition(s), primarily for the reason(s) that (a) the award(s) being not pronounced by the afore Court, (b) nor, it being sent to this Court for execution, by the Sole arbitrator i.e., Director (North) HP State Forest Development Corporation Ltd., Dharamshala, (c) but, it being directly filed in the Court of District Judge, Kangra, wherefrom it stood assigned to the afore Court. 2. Since all the Civil Revisions are carrying a common question of law, hence are amenable for meteing an adjudication, under a common judgment. 3. The afore reason(s) are merit-worthy, as, in a judgment, titled as State of West Bengal and Others versus Associated Contractors reported in, (2015) 1 SCC 32 , relevant paragraph 25 (a) whereof stands extracted hereinafter, rather hence categorical expostulation of law, stands borne, qua only the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, in, a District or High Court (a) hence holding the requisite original civil jurisdiction for the purposes of entertaining a petition, cast under the provision of Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, (b) and obviously also for the purposes of entertaining, the, apt execution petition(s), (c) thereupon the assignment of a petition(s) cast under Section 36 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, and, of execution petitions' by the learned District Judge, vis-a-vis, the Court of Additional District Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, is, beyond the mandate of the expostulations of law, as, borne in the afore judgment. “(a) Section 2 (1) (e) contains an exhaustive definition marking out only the Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction in a district or a High Court having original civil jurisdiction in the State, and no other court as “Court” for the purpose of part I of the Arbitration Act, 1996.” 4. “(a) Section 2 (1) (e) contains an exhaustive definition marking out only the Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction in a district or a High Court having original civil jurisdiction in the State, and no other court as “Court” for the purpose of part I of the Arbitration Act, 1996.” 4. Consequently, the impugned verdict(s) are merit worthy, and, in consonance with the afore, the learned District Judge, Kangra is directed to recall, the, afore petition(s), constituted under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, and, also the requisite execution petitions, from, the docket of Additional District Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, and, ensure theirs being lodged in its docket, and, thereafter the latter shall render decision(s), upon, the afore, in consonance with the mandate borne in a judgment titled as Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. Abdul Samad reported in, (2018) 3 SCC 622 . The respective parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala on 17.1.2019. In view of the above, the present petition stands disposed of. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.