JUDGMENT : 1. The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed seeking to condone the delay of 37 days in filing the main appeal challenging the order passed by the Trial Court dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 , to refer the dispute to arbitration in terms of Arbitration Clause contained in the Memorandum of Understanding dated 01.05.2015 read with Supplementary Agreement dated 09.12.2016. 2. The 1 st respondent herein filed a suit in O.S.No.113 of 2021 on the file of the V Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai against the petitioner and other respondents seeking mandatory injunction against all the defendants either jointly or severally to comply with the terms of Memorandum of Understanding dated 01.05.2015 read with Supplementary Agreement dated 09.12.2016, more particularly, Clause 11 of Memorandum of Understanding dated 01.05.2015. 3. The petitioner herein, who was arrayed as a 1 st defendant in the suit filed an application under Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Trial Court seeking reference to arbitration in terms of Arbitration Clause contained in Memorandum of Understanding mentioned above. The Trial Court by relying on Clause 12 of the Memorandum of Understanding, dismissed the application seeking reference to arbitration. Aggrieved by the same, the main Arbitration Appeal in SR.No.107797 of 2024 has been filed before this Court by the petitioner/appellant. Since there was a delay in filing the appeal, the instant application is filed seeking condonation of delay. 4. When the condone delay petition is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the 1 st respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the appeal before this Court. 5. It is his specific case that under Section 37 (1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 , in case of dismissal of petition filed under Section 8 of the said Act, an appeal shall lie only before the court authorised by law to entertain appeals from the original decrees passed by the said Court, which passes the order of dismissal. He further submitted that against the original order passed by the Assistant City Civil Court, an appeal shall lie only before the Principal City Civil Judge in terms of Section 15 (2-D) of the Chennai City Civil Court Act, 1892 and appeal before this Court is not maintainable. 6. He further submitted that against the original order passed by the Assistant City Civil Court, an appeal shall lie only before the Principal City Civil Judge in terms of Section 15 (2-D) of the Chennai City Civil Court Act, 1892 and appeal before this Court is not maintainable. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner by relying on the definition of the word 'Court' under Section 2 (1)(e)(i) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 try to sustain the maintainability of the appeal before this Court. 7. The main issue to be decided is whether the instant appeal filed by the appellant/petitioner challenging the dismissal of Section 8 application filed by the petitioner seeking reference to arbitration is maintainable before this Court. 8. Section 2 (1)(e)(i) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 defines the word 'Court' and the same reads as follows:- “Section 2(1)(e)(i) - in the case of an arbitration other than international commercial arbitration, 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 a suit, but does not include any Civil Court of a grade inferior to such principal Civil Court, or any Court of Small Causes.” 9. Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 , deals with appealable orders which reads as follows:- “37. Appealable orders - (1) [Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, an appeal] shall lie from the following orders (and from no others) to the court authorised by law to hear appeals from original decrees of the Court passing the order, namely:- (a) refusing to refer the parties to arbitration under section 8; (b) granting or refusing to grant any measure under section 9; (c) setting aside or refusing to set aside an arbitral award under section 34. (2) Appeal shall also lie to a court from an order of the arbitral tribunal- (a) accepting the plea referred to in sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of section 16; (b) granting or refusing to grant an interim measure under section 17. (2) Appeal shall also lie to a court from an order of the arbitral tribunal- (a) accepting the plea referred to in sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of section 16; (b) granting or refusing to grant an interim measure under section 17. (3) No second appeal shall lie from an order passed in appeal under this section, but nothing in this section shall affect or takeaway any right to appeal to the Supreme Court.” 10. Section 15 (2-D) of the Chennai City Civil Court Act, 1892 deals with appeal against the original decrees passed by the Assistant City Civil Judge, which reads as follows:- “ Section 15 (2-D) An appeal shall lie to the Principal Judge from any decree or order, appealable under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908), if passed in any suit or proceeding by an Assistant Judge on or after the date of the commencement of the Tamil Nadu Civil Courts and Chennai City Civil Court (Amendment) Act, 2003.]” 11. A close reading of Section 2 (1)(e)(i) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 makes it clear that for the purpose of Part-I of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 , the word 'Court' only refers to Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. As far as the City of Madras is concerned, the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction is High Court. Therefore, it is clear that whenever the word 'Court' is used in Part-I of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (i.e., from Sections 1 to 43), it can be safely taken as the reference to High Court as far as City of Madras is concerned. In so far as the Districts are concerned, the word 'Court' refers to the respective District Court, which has got original jurisdiction of unlimited pecuniary value. 12. A close scrutiny of Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 will make it clear that an order refusing to refer the parties to arbitration under Section 8 of the said Act is appealable one. In terms of Section 37 (1) of the Act, an appeal shall lie to the Court authorised by law to hear appeals from original decrees of the Court passing such order. Therefore, under Section 37 (1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 the word 'Court' is used in a different sense. In terms of Section 37 (1) of the Act, an appeal shall lie to the Court authorised by law to hear appeals from original decrees of the Court passing such order. Therefore, under Section 37 (1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 the word 'Court' is used in a different sense. The Appellate Court mentioned under Section 37 (1) of the Act is the regular Appellate Court to which appeal shall lie from the original decrees passed by the Court which passes the order refusing to refer the parties to arbitration under Section 8 of the said Act. 13. It is settled law that whenever a word is defined under the definition section of the Act, the said word wherever employed in the Act will have the meaning as given in the definition section. On the other hand, when the very same word is used in different sense giving different meaning, the word shall be understood in the manner as it is used in the particular section. Under Section 37 (1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 , the word 'Court' is given different meaning by virtue of subsequent expression in the section itself. The said section clearly says that appeal shall lie to the Court authorised by law to hear the appeals from original decrees of the Court passing the order. Therefore, the deviated meaning given in Section 37 (1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 , will prevail over the general meaning given in definition section. 14. It is also seen from Section 2 of the Act, it begins with the words “unless the context otherwise requires”. Therefore, as far as Part-I of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 , is concerned, the word 'Court' will carry the meaning as defined in Section 2 (1)(e)(i) of the Act unless the context requires a different meaning. Since the Section 37 of the Act itself gives a deviated meaning to the word 'Court', by virtue of expression “authorised by law to hear appeals from original decrees of the Court passing the order”, contained therein, the context with which the word 'Court' is used under Section 37 of the Act differs and the deviated meaning by virtue of context will prevail over Section 2 (1)(e)(i) of the Act. 15. 15. In view of the employment of the expression “unless the context otherwise requires” under Section 2(1) of the Act, we can safely come to the conclusion that the appeal shall lie only to the Court to which the regular first appeal from the original decrees passed by the Court, which dismissed the Section 8 application will lie. 16. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the appeal filed by the appellant/petitioner is not maintainable before this Court. When appeal itself is not maintainable, there is no necessity to decide the condone delay petition presented by the petitioner. Therefore, the condone delay petition filed before this Court is closed and the Registry is directed to return the main appeal papers in Arbitration Appeal SR.No.107797 of 2024 with a direction to the appellant/petitioner to present it before appropriate Court in terms of Section 37 (1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 . 17. It is made clear that the appellant/petitioner is entitled to exclude the time taken before this Court in prosecuting the matter by filing an appropriate application under Section 14 of Limitation Act, 1963 . 18. With this clarification, the main Arbitration Appeal in SR.No.107797 of 2024 is ordered to be returned and Civil Miscellaneous Petition in C.M.P. No. 22102 of 2024 is closed. No costs.