1. The petitioner seeks to revise the order of the 3rd Additional District Munsif. Vijayawada, returning the plaint in O.S. 525 64 on his file under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act. What the District Munsif has done in this case is this. An application was filed by the arbitrators under Section 14 of the Act and the Court directed the application to be registered as a suit and it was numbered as O. S. 526/64. The learned Munsif felt that the suit O. S. 525/64) is misconceived and directed the return of the plaint for following the procedure laid down in Section 14 of the Arbitration Act It is not known when it was first numbered as an O. P. and again under orders of the Court when it was registered as a suit and why the District Munsif should think it is misconceived and ask the petitioner to follow once again the procedure laid down in Section 14 of the Arbitration Act Under Rule 5 of the Rules framed under the Arbitration Act applications made under Section 14 of the Act shall be numbered and registered as suits Therefore what was done by the Munsif viz., registering the application as a suit is in accordance with what is laid down in rule 5 The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has raised the question that a revision does not lie against the order made under Order 7 Rule 10 and that an appeal alone would lie under Order 43, rule 1 (a) and in support of his contention relied upon a decision of the Madhya Bharat High Court in Tharpal v. Arjun Singh. AIR 1957 Madh Bha 22 The learned Judge dealing with a case arising under the Arbitration Actwhere a plaint was rejected by the Court under Order 7, Rule 10 observed:
'The words and from no others' used in Section 38 refer to orders passed under the express provisions of the Arbitration Act and not orders passed under other provisions of law, like Code of Civil Procedure. Thus, where an order is not an order passed under the Arbitration Act, but is an order of rejection of plaint passed under the provisions of Order 7,Rule 11, C.P.C., Section 39 Arbitration Act does apply. Hence an appeal lies from the order and not a revision' .
There could be no dispute regarding the proposition laid down by the learned Judge, In the event of a party's failure to prefer an appeal whether a revision filed in that behalf could be said to be incompetent. Chandra Reddy, J. as he then was, dealing with applications made under Sections 14, 17 and 39 of the Arbitration Acl observed in P. Ramulu v. N. Appalaswami, AIR 1957 Andh Pra 11:
'Section 14(2) can apply only to a case where the help of the Court is sought for getting the award into Court by calling upon the arbitrators to do it. Where the award is in Court and the only relief asked for is the passing of a decree in terms of that award the case falls under Section 17. No appeal is provided in case of dismissal of such application unless 11 comes under any of the exceptions specified therein and the only remedy is a revision petition.
An appeal is a creature of a statute, and the right of appeal cannot be extended by implication. Therefore, when the legislature thought fit to provide in S. 39 (1) for appeals only in six cases it is beyond the scope of a Court to confer a right of appeal in other cases by inference. Assuming an appeal is competent, the right of the High Court to exercise its revisional jurisdiction is not taken away to correct error that comes to its notice under Section 115 C. P. C. though it would hesitate to do so normally '. Here is a case where an error has been committed having once followed the procedure laid down in Section 14 and Rule 5 of the Arbitration Act. This is thus a fit case where this Court should interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction in correct an obvious and glaring error committed by the trial Court.
2. The revision is allowed, the order ofthe District Munsif returning the plaint forre-presentation is set aside, and he is directedto dispose of the plaint in accordance withthe provisions of the statute. There will beno order as to costs here.