SHINGHAL, J - (1.) THIS is an application in revision of defendant Bhanwarlal against the order of Additional Munsiff No. 1, Jodhpur, dated May 1, 1970, rejecting the challenge to the jurisdiction and the competence of his court to try the suit.
(2.) THE suit was instituted in the court of Civil Judge, Jodhpur, on 3 6-1967, as its value was Rs. 2,660/- and it was not triable by the Munsiff whose pecuniary jurisdiction was up to Rs. 2,000/ -. THE learned District Judge transferred the suit for trial to Additional Civil Judge, Jodhpur. By virtue of the delegation of the State Government's powers under sub sec. (2) of sec. 19 of the Rajasthan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1950, hereinafter referred to as "the Ordinance", the High Court issued a notification under clause (b) of the proviso to sub-sec. (1) of sec. 19 directing that the jurisdiction of the munsiffs named in the notification shall, with effect from October 2, 1969, extend to the hearing and determination of any suit or original proceeding of which the value does not exceed Rs. 5,000/ -. THE Registrar of the High Court issued letter No. Gen. /ii/28/69/10498 dated September 2, 1969 bringing the aforesaid direction to the notice of all the subordinate courts and clarifying that for the present, civil suits and original proceedings of which the value does not exceed Rs 5 000/-, pending in the court of Civil Judges, shall not be transferred to the munsiffs but shall continue to be heard and determined by them. This was followed by another order dated January 23, 1970, by which the Registrar informed all the District Judges that all civil suits of the value of Rs. 5,000/- and below, pending in the courts of Civil Judges, may be transferred by them under sec. 24 C. P. C. to the munsiffs having jurisdiction to try them. THE District Judge of Jodhpur then passed an order on February 7, 1970 transferring the present case for trial to Additional Munsiff No. 1, Jodhpur, under sec. 24 C. P. C. THE case therefore stood transferred to Additional Munsiff No. 1. THE defendants moved an application on April 2, 1970 raising an objection that Additional Munsiff No. 1 had no jurisdiction to try the suit. As that objection has been rejected by the learned Additional Munsiff on May 1, 1970, as aforesaid, defendant Bhanwarlal has come up in revision to this court. It has been argued by Mr. Maloo, learned counsel for the defendant-applicant, that in the absence of any law depriving the Additional Civil Judge of his jurisdiction to try the suit it was not legal for the learned District Judge to transfer it for trial to a lower court, namely, the court of Additional Munsiff No. 1, Jodhpur. He has tried to support his argument by a reference to Vaithilingam Chetty vs. Raliaperumal Mudali (1), Jannat Husain vs. Gulam Kutubiddin Ahmad (2), Venugopala Reddiar vs. Krishnaswami Reddiar alias Raja Chidambara Reddiar (3), C. P. Bannerjee vs. B. S. Irani (4), M/s Gordhandas, Baldevdas vs. The Governor General in Council (5), Cyril Austin Spencer alias Cyril Spencer vs. M H. Spencer (6), Ranulal vs. Dnudas (7), Doongarmal vs. Roopsingh (8), and Lakshmi Narain vs. First Additional District Judge, Allahabad (9 ). On the other hand Mr. Chhangani has argued that a case can validly be transferred to a court when, at the time of the transfer, it has jurisdiction to try it even though there may be no such jurisdiction in that court when the case was instituted. He has supported his argument by a reference to certain observations in Sarjudei vs. Rampati Kanwari (10) with respect to the scope of sec. 24 CPC. I have already set out the facts and the developments bearing on the question of the jurisdiction of Additional Munsiff No 1, Jodhpur, and they are not at all in dispute. It is also not disputed that the notification issued by the High Court on September 1, 1969, referred to above, is a valid notification. It follows, therefore, that with effect from October 2, 1969, when the direction in the notification became effective in regard to the jurisdiction of the concerned Munsiffs, Additional Munsiff No 1, Jodhpur, had the jurisdiction to hear and determine any suit or original proceeding of which the value did not exceed Rs. 5,000/ -. As the present suit has been valued at Rs. 2,660/-, it is quite apparent that the learned Munsiff had the jurisdiction to hear and determine it from October 2, 1969 onwards. Sec. 24 C. P. C. makes provision for the general power of transfer and withdrawal inter alia of all suits pending in any court, and for its transfer for trial or disposal to any subordinate court competent to try or dispose of the same. This power is vested in the High Court and the District Court, and is exercisable at any stage of the suit, appeal or other proceeding as long as it is pending in any subordinate court. The relevant provision for withdrawal and transfer, with which I am concerned in the present case, is to the following effect - "24 (1) On the application of the parties. . . . . . or of its own motion. . . . . . . . . . . . the District court may, at any stage - (a ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , or (b) withdraw any suit. . . . . . . . . pending in any court subordinate to it, and - (i ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (ii) transfer the same for trial or disposal to any court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same ; or (iii ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " It will thus appear that the learned District Judge had the power to withdraw the present suit as it was) pending in the court of the Additional Civil Judge which was a court subordinate to the District Court. He had the power to transfer it for trial to the court of Additional Munsiff No. 1, Jodhpur, as it was also a court subordinate to the District Court. So also, I have no doubt that, by virtue of the High Court's notification dated September 1, 1969 mentioned above, the court of Additional Munsiff No. 1, Jodhpur, was competent to try the suit with effect from October 2, 1969 and possessed that competence on February 7, 1970 when the District Judge transferred it to that court for trial. The competence of the transferee court for purposes of sec. 24 (ll) (b) (ii) C. P. C. has to be judged with reference to the point of time at which the case is transferred, and it therefore appears to me that the District Judge's order of transfer dated February 1, 1970 is valid in law and that the objection of the defendants dated April 2, 1970 has rightly been rejected by the learned Additional Munsiff, As has been stated, Mr. Chhangani has placed reliance on Sarjudei vs. Rampati Kunwari (10) in which a similar view has been taken that the transferee court must be competent to try the case at the time when the transfer is ordered and not that it must have been competent for sometime previously or that it was competent to hear the suit when it was instituted. I am in respectful agreement with this view. Sarju Dei's case (10) came up for consideration before their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Lakshmi Narain vs. First Addl. District Judge, Allahabad (9 ). As Mr. Maloo has relied on that judgment of their Lordships, I may as well refer to it in some detail. The suit in Lakshmi Narain's case (9) was instituted on 26-1-1949, in the court of Civil Judge, Mathura. It was dismissed on 27. 11. 1951 and first appeal No. 37 of 1952 was instituted in the High Court on 8. 2. 1952 as the valuation was above Rs. 5,000/ -. The appeal was however transferred to the District Judge after the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act (XII of 1887), was amended in 1954, so as to substitute Rs. 10,000/- for Rs. 5,000/- for purposes of the appellate jurisdiction. The District Judge could therefore entertain an appeal up to the value of Rs. 10,000/-, and the High Court of Allahabad made an order for the transfer of the appeal to him. The appellant objected to the jurisdiction of the transferee court to hear the appeal, but it was overruled. A writ petition was filed in the High Court under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution. It was dismissed by a learned Single Judge by a reference to the decision of the Division Bench in Sarjudei's case (10 ). The appeal to the Division Bench was also dismissed for the same reason. On special leave, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held, on the basis of sec. 3 (1 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887, that under it only the High Court was competent to hear the appeal within the meaning of sec. 24 C. P. C. , so that it could not be transferred to subordinate court. The decision in Lakshmi Narain's case 9) cannot therefore be said to have overruled the view taken in Sarju Dei's case (10 ). On the other hand, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have taken care to make the following clear observation - "we are here not concerned with the question whether in the absence of a saving clause, like the one introduced by Sec. 3 (1), the High Court would have been right in taking recourse to Sec. 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But in the face of Sec. 3 (1) of the Act, it is impossible to hold that the District Courts, were competent to hear appeals of the valuation of ten thousand rupees or less in suits decided before the Act came into force, and appeals from which were pending in the High Court. '* It will thus appear that the validity of that portion of the decision in Sarju Dei's case (10) on which I have placed reliance, namely, that the case can be transferred under sec. 24 C P. C. if the transferee court is competent, at the time when the transfer is ordered, to try the suit, remains unshaken and deserves to be followed. I have gone through the cases cited by Mr. Maloo, but none of them relates to the question of the competence of the transferee court with reference to the provisions of sec. 24 C. P. C. In fact all of those cases are clearly distinguishable. In the view I have taken, the revision application fails and is dismissed but, in the circumstances, there will be no order as to the costs. . ;