K. N. Misra, J. - (1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 12-2-1986 passed by District Judge, Lucknow transferring the suit from the Court of Civil Judge Malihabad, Lucknow, to the court of Civil Judge, Mohanlalganj, Lucknow, which is court of competent jurisdiction to entertain and decide this suit.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the revisionist urged that Section 24 sub-clause (5) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) makes the provisions contained in Order 7 Rule 10 and 10-A of the Code nugatory and, thus, according to him, the power for transferring the case from a court having no jurisdiction to try it cannot be exercised by the District Judge under section 24 sub-clause (5) of the Act. If the suit was found to be non-maintainable in the court of Civil Judge, Malihabad, Lucknow, then the same could be returned to the plaintiff for presentation in the court of Civil Judge, Mohanlalganj, Lucknow under Order 7 Rule 10 and 10-A of the Code. According to the learned counsel such order should have been passed by Civil Judge, Malihabad in exercise of powers under said provisions of the Code and since it has not been done, and, as such, the impugned order passed by the District Judge, Lucknow, transferring the case to the court of Civil Judge, Mohanlalganj from the court of Civil Judge, Malihabad cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed. I am unable to agree with this contention. In exercise of powers under section 24 sub-clause (5) of the Code, the suit pending in a court having no jurisdiction to try it can be transferred by the District Judge. It is a different matter that the court of Civil Judge, Malihabad could also pass order regarding return of the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation before the competent court in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 10-A of the Code, but that will not make the impugned order passed by the District Judge, Lucknow invalid. The power to transfer case from the court having no jurisdiction to try it could be legally' exercised by the District Judge under section 24 sub-clause (5) of the Code and I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of revisional powers under section 115 of the Code. The impugned order, in my opinion, does not suffer from any error of law or jurisdiction. In the result, this revision fails and it is accordingly dismissed in limine, Revision dismissed.;