Sunita Agarwal, J. - (1.) The order dated 25.4.2017 passed by the District Judge, Baghpat in the transfer application filed under section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code namely Misc. Case No. 35 of 2017 (Smt. Khursheeda v. Smt. Santosh and others), is under challenge. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the District Judge, Baghpat had jurisdiction to transfer the suit before the appropriate Court i.e. the Court of Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Baghpat, in exercise of powers under section 24(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure. There was no justification to ask the petitioner to request for return of plaint under Order 7, Rule 10 and institute the same before the appropriate Court. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Kandarp Construction India Pvt. Ltd. v. Brijesh Pathak and others reported in 2016 (11) ADJ 118.
(2.) On a question of jurisdiction being raised by the defendant, an application under Order 7, Rule 10 C.P.C. was moved by the plaintiff which was kept pending and order of status quo had been passed by the Court of Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Court No. 1, Baghpat. Ultimately, it was found by the Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Baghpat that the valuation of suit was approximately 14 lakhs and, therefore, it was incompetent to try the same. The plaintiff instead of asking for return of the plaint, moved a transfer application under section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure. The District Judge, Baghpat has rejected the same saying that as the suit itself was incompetent, it cannot be transferred.
(3.) Considering the submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioner and having perused the record, it is more than apparent that the defendants raised objections with regard to the valuation of the suit and the said objections have been sustained by the Court of Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Baghpat.;