MYLASU GOPALARAO Vs. CHITTA SEETHARAMIAH AND ANR.
LAWS(MAD)-1952-10-24
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on October 07,1952

Mylasu Gopalarao Appellant
VERSUS
Chitta Seetharamiah Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Raghava Rao, J. - (1.) A small cause suit filed in the District Munsif's Court of Eluru was transferred by an order of this Court, to the Subordinate Judge's Court at Eluru for disposal along with two other suits. In the suit out of which this revision arises there was a decision rendered by the transferee Court, the sub -Court at Eluru, against which the defendant has filed this revision petition.
(2.) MR . Ch. Sankara Sastri, the learned advocate appearing for the plaintiffs, has taken a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this revision petition on the ground that against the decision of the Subordinate Judge an appeal would lie to the District Court. So, says counsel, this revision is incompetent. In other words, learned counsel says that the decision pronounced by the Subordinate Judge must be regarded as a decision in the exercise of his original jurisdiction and not a decision in the exercise of small cause jurisdiction. It is pointed out by Mr. Sankara Sastri that in fact the sub -Court at Eluru had no small cause jurisdiction at the time that the transfer took place. So, says counsel the jurisdiction actually exercised by the sub -Court at Eluru must be referred to its original jurisdiction and not to any small cause jurisdiction. As counsel drew my attention to Section 24, C. P.C., in connection with their arguments, it has struck me that Section 24(4) of the Code creates a real difficulty in the way of this preliminary objection raised by Mr. Sankara Sastri. (His Lordship after quoting the provision stated:) This, to my mind, puts an end to all enquiry after a transfer has taken place as to whether, after the transfer, it is the original jurisdiction of the transferee Court that must be said to have been exercised, or the small cause jurisdiction of the Court from which the transfer took place. Mr. Sankara Sastri concedes that in this case he is not disputing the validity of the order of transfer made by the High Court. But he says that notwithstanding the order of transfer, the jurisdiction, actually exercised by the transferee Court is referable only to the original jurisdiction vested in the transferee Court from the inception and not to the small cause jurisdiction which can be reasonably supposed to have been transferred to it by the High Court on account of its order of transfer of the cause itself from the file of the Munsif's court to the sub -Court.
(3.) IF a provision like the one embodied in Section 24(4), C. P.C., did not exist, the contention of Mr, Sankara Sastri might have some force. In most cases it is difficult to say, after the kind of transfer under Sub -section (1) has been made, whether the subsequent trial of the transferred suit must be referred, where the transfer has been to a Court possessed of original jurisdiction, to such original jurisdiction or to the small cause jurisdiction vested in the Court in which the suit was originally instituted as a small cause suit. It is precisely to avoid enquiries into matters of such difficulty, after the order of transfer has taken place, that the provision in Section 24(4), C.P.C., seems to my mind to have been made by the Legislature in order to ensure that the decision of the transferee Court shall be regarded, for the purpose of procedure including a' question of appealability, as in a small cause suit which it originally was undoubtedly. The effect of Sub -section (4) in my opinion is to make the decision by the Sub -Court at Eluru in the present case a small cause decision and not an original side decision.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.