JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner along with Mr. Navin Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate and Mr. Dheeraj Kumar, Advocate. 2. Heard Mr. Rajendra Raghuvanshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents along with Mr. Kaustav Panda, Advocate. 3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- ''This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 06.10.2016 passed in Execution Case No. 60/2014 by Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) No. 1, Ranchi filed herein wherein application/objection filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and Decree holder i.e. Respondent No. 1 herein has been directed to file writ for realization of the Decreetal amount, now pending in the court of Additional Judicial Commissioner, XIII-cum-Commercial Court, Ranchi and also for quashing of the order dated 16.05.2017 passed by Additional Judicial Commissioner-XIII-cum-Commercial Court, Ranchi in Execution Case No. 60/2014 filed by the respondent No. 1 whereby the time petition filed by the petitioner for adjourning the execution case no. 60/2014 till adjudication of the appeal filed by the petitioner against the Arbitration Award No. 07/2013, has been dismissed whereas both Arbitration Appeal U/s 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Execution Case No. 60/2014 are pending before one court i.e. Additional Judicial Commissioner-XII- cum-Commercial Court, Ranchi.'' Arguments of the petitioner 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the solitary point which is involved in this case is whether the impugned order dated 06.10.2016 passed in Execution Case No. 60/2014 arising out of Arbitral Award dated 16.04.2014 by the learned court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) No. 1, Ranchi is wholly without jurisdiction in view of the fact that the learned court below lost jurisdiction over the execution proceeding after constitution of commercial court at Ranchi under the provisions of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to the Act of 2015) for which necessary notification was also issued for transfer of such cases. He further submits that by the said order dated 16.10.2016, the objection to the execution proceedings was rejected and therefore the consequential order dated 16.05.2017 passed by Additional Judicial Commissioner-XIII-cum-Commercial Court, Ranchi in Execution Case No. 60/2014 whereby writ for delivery of possession was issued be also set-aside. 5. He further submits that by the said order dated 16.10.2016, the objection to the execution proceedings was rejected and therefore the consequential order dated 16.05.2017 passed by Additional Judicial Commissioner-XIII-cum-Commercial Court, Ranchi in Execution Case No. 60/2014 whereby writ for delivery of possession was issued be also set-aside. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Execution Case No. 60 of 2014 was filed in the court of learned Subordinate Judge, I, Ranchi under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Order XXI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and vide impugned order dated 06.10.2016, the objection which was put forward by the judgment debtors was rejected and the decree holder was directed to file writ for realization of the decretal award and vide impugned order dated 16.05.2017, the office was directed to issue writ of delivery of possession in favour of the respondent no. 1. Learned counsel submits that as per Section 10 and 15 of the aforesaid Act of 2015 , the execution proceedings were to be transferred to the commercial court, since the amount involved in the case is more than One crore. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of constitution of a separate Commercial Court at Ranchi, the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) No. 1, Ranchi proceeded with the matter and passed the impugned order dated 16.10.2016. He submits that as of now the execution case is pending before the learned commercial court at Ranchi who has passed the consequential order dated 16.05.2017 which is also under challenge. 6. Under Section 15(2) of the Act of 2015 , all suits and applications including applications under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 relating to a commercial dispute of specified value pending in any court in any district or area in respect of which commercial court has been constituted is required to be transferred to such commercial court and therefore the execution proceeding which is an application under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 should have been transferred to the commercial court immediately upon constitution of the commercial court. He has referred to the notification regarding constitution of the commercial court at Ranchi as annexed with the supplementary affidavit and has also produced another order dated 09.08.2016 issued by the office of learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi transferring all suits and applications under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 of specified value of 1 crore and above to the commercial court at Ranchi. Arguments of the respondent no. 1 7. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 on the other hand has opposed the prayer by filing a counter affidavit in the present case and has stated that the entire dispute arises out of consent award dated 16.04.2014 directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 2.30 crores by 30.05.2014 and further directing that if the petitioner fails to comply any part of the award by 30.05.2014, then simple interest @ 18% per annum at least from 07.08.2012 i.e. the date of the filing of the arbitration application no. 9 of 2012 in the High Court, till the date of payment will be realized. He further submits that the execution case in connection with the award under Section 36 read with Order XXI Rule 11 of the CPC before Sub Judge-I, Ranchi was filed as back as on 16.04.2014 and upon constitution of the commercial court, the executing court does not lose its jurisdiction as any suit or any application in the suit is not pending. The learned counsel submits that in view of the provisions of Section 10(3) read with Section 15 of the Act of 2015, the execution proceedings which was filed as back as in the year 2014 was not required to be transferred and the same would continue in the court before whom it was filed as it is not in dispute that on the date of filing of the execution case, the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) No. 1, Ranchi had the jurisdiction to entertain the execution proceedings. The learned counsel further refers to the judgment passed by the court of Commercial Court, Ranchi in Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2016 dated 21.02.2018 whereby the challenge to the award involved in this case has been rejected being barred by limitation. Findings of this court 8. Div.) No. 1, Ranchi had the jurisdiction to entertain the execution proceedings. The learned counsel further refers to the judgment passed by the court of Commercial Court, Ranchi in Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2016 dated 21.02.2018 whereby the challenge to the award involved in this case has been rejected being barred by limitation. Findings of this court 8. After hearing counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case this court finds that it is not in dispute that the impugned orders have been passed in the execution proceedings filed as back as in the year 2014 under section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the amount involved in the award is much more than 1 crore. It is also not in dispute that the execution proceedings is now pending in the Commercial Court at Ranchi constituted under the aforesaid Act of 2015. It is also not in dispute that on the day the impugned order dated 16.10.2016 was passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) No. 1, Ranchi, the Commercial Court at Ranchi was already constituted under the aforesaid Act of 2015 and notifications and office order relied upon by the petitioner were already issued. 9. In the aforesaid background, the only issue to be decided in the present case is as to whether the impugned order dated 6.10.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) No. 1, Ranchi, is wholly without jurisdiction and accordingly fit to be set-aside. Further question is, whether the consequential order dated 16.05.2017 passed by Additional Judicial Commissioner-XIII- cum-Commercial Court, Ranchi is also fit to be set-aside. 10. Section 10 sub-clause (3) of the aforesaid Act of 2015 is reproduced for ready reference as under: ''10. Jurisdiction in respect of arbitration matters. Where the subject-matter of an arbitration is a commercial dispute of a Specified Value and (1) (2) (3) If such arbitration is other than an international commercial arbitration, all applications or appeals arising out of such arbitration under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) that would ordinarily lie before any principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district (not being a High Court) shall be filed in, and heard and disposed of by the Commercial Court exercising territorial jurisdiction over such arbitration where such Commercial Court has been constituted.'' 11. Section 15 of the aforesaid Act of 2015 provides for transfer of pending suits and applications, including applications under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, relating to Commercial disputes of a specified value to the Commercial Court. 12. There is no dispute in the instant case that the amount involved is more than the ''specified value'' as defined and notified under the aforesaid Act of 2015 13. Relevant sub-clause of section 15(2) reads as follows: 15. Transfer of pending cases. (1) (2) All suits and applications, including applications under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), relating to a commercial dispute of a Specified Value pending in any civil Court in any district or area in respect of which a Commercial Court has been constituted, shall be transferred to such Commercial Court : Provided that no suit or application where the final judgment has been reserved by the Court prior to the constitution of the Commercial Division or the Commercial Court shall be transferred either under subsection (1) or sub-section (2).'' 14.Thus, upon perusal of the aforesaid provision there can be no doubt that, where the subject-matter of arbitration is a commercial dispute of a specified value, which is not less than Rs. 1 crore, then such matter needs to be transferred and decided by the Commercial Court alone, wherever it is established. The use of the words ''all suits and applications, including applications under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996'' in section 15(2) of the aforesaid Act of 2015 is wide enough to include the application filed for execution of the arbitral award passed under the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The contention to the respondent that the term ''application'' in section 15(2) of the aforesaid Act of 2015 should be confined to ''any application filed in the suit'' cannot be accepted considering the clear language of the section 15(2) itself. 15.In the present case, a supplementary affidavit has been filed bringing on record the notification dated 29t h June, 2016 issued by the order of Honble Governor of Jharkhand. 15.In the present case, a supplementary affidavit has been filed bringing on record the notification dated 29t h June, 2016 issued by the order of Honble Governor of Jharkhand. The said notification reads as under:- ''In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3(1) of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Court At, 2015, the State Government in consultation with the Honble High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi has constituted one Commercial Court each in the District of Ranchi, Dhanbad & East Singhbhum (Jamshedpur) by the Law Departments Notification No. 1220/J, dated 24.05.2016. After due consideration the State Government in consultation with Honble High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi has decided and extended the jurisdiction of local limits of above mentioned Commercial Courts as mentioned below:- S. No. Commercial Court Jurisdiction (Local Limits) notified by Law Department vide Notification No. 1220/J dated 24.05.2016 Extended Jurisdiction (Local Limits) 1 Ranchi Ranchi South Chotanagpur Divison and Palamau Division 2. Dhanbad Dhanbad North Chotanagpur Division and Santhal Pargana Division 3. East Singhbhum (Jamshedpur) East Singhbhum (Jamshedpur) Kolhan Division 2. This Notification shall come into force with effect from the date of notification. 3. The earlier Notification no. 1220/J dated 24.05.2016 issued by the Law Department is hereby amended to that extent.'' 16. From perusal of the said notification it appears that Commercial Court at Ranchi was constituted earlier vide notification dated 24.05.2016 which stood amended by the aforesaid notification dated 29.06.2016 to extend the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court at Ranchi to local limit South Chhotanagpur Division and Palamau Division. 17. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also produced a copy of the order no. 75/Admn.-1 issued by the office of the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi which was issued in pursuance to the notification dated 24.05.2016 and also notification dated 29.06.2016 directing that all suits and applications, including application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 relating to the commercial dispute of specified value (which shall not be less than Rs. One crore) or such higher value as may be notified by the Central Government pending in the said judgeship in respect of which Commercial Court has been constituted shall be transferred to such Commercial court. 18. One crore) or such higher value as may be notified by the Central Government pending in the said judgeship in respect of which Commercial Court has been constituted shall be transferred to such Commercial court. 18. From perusal of the said Order No. 75/Admn.-1 issued by the office of Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi dated 09.08.2016, the applications under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 relating to commercial dispute of one crore and above stood transferred to the commercial court. 19. This court is of the considered view that on the day when the impugned order dated 16.10.2016 was passed, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division No. 1) Ranchi had lost its jurisdiction over the Execution Case No. 60/2014 pending before the said Court. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 06.10.2016 is hereby set aside on account of want of jurisdiction and consequently the consequential order dated 16.05.2017 passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner, XIII cum Commercial Court Ranchi is also set aside. 20.Since the matter is pending before the Commercial Court, Ranchi the learned court shall take up the matter in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Commercial Court, Ranchi on 27.02.2020 and upon their appearance the court shall proceed with the matter. 21. Pending I.A., if any, stands dismissed as not pressed. 22. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 23. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX.