KEJRIWAL, J. - (1.) ONE of us (Justice R. S. Kejriwal), referred the following questions to be decided by larger Bench: - (1) Whether the District Judge had no jurisdiction to transfer a suit valued less than Rs. 25,000/- which was pending in the Court of District Judge or Additional District Judge at the commencement of Ordinance No. 2/1992, to the Court of Munsif ? (2) Whether the proceedings and the decree passed by the transferee Court is without jurisdiction and is nullity? and (3) Whether Section 19 of the Rajasthan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1950, is retrospective or prospective?
(2.) THE Hon'ble Chief Justice has constituted this larger bench for deciding the above questions. Brief relevant facts of the case on account of which the questions have been referred are as under: On 3. 2. 1986, the plaintiffs non-petitioners filed a suit against the petitioners in the Court of District Judge, Alwar. The suit was valued at Rs. 13,800/ -. In the year 1988, the suit was transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge No. 2, Alwar, who recorded the evidence of the parties. During the pendency of the suit, Rajasthan Civil Courts (Amendment) Ordinance, 1992 (Ordinance No. 2/1992) (for short 'the Ordinance No. 2/1992) amending Rajasthan Civil Courts Ordinance 1950, came into force w. e. f. 12. 8. 1992. By this Ordinance No. 2/92, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court of Munsif was enhanced from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 25,000/ -. After coming into force of this Ordinance No. 2/1992, the District Judge, Alwar, in exercise of his powers under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, transferred the suit from the Court of Additional District Judge No. 2, Alwar, to the Court of A. M. J. M. No. 3, as the valuation of the suit was below Rs. 25,000/ -. The learned A. M. J. M. No. 3, Alwar, vide his judgment and decree dated 19. 3. 1994, decreed the suit. Against that decree, the defendants-petitioners filed Civil Regular First Appeal in the Court of District Judge, Alawar, which was lateron transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge No. l, Alwar, and the same is still pending before the said Court. During the pendency of the said appeal the defendants-petitioners filed an application raising objections that the transfer of the suit to the Court of A. M. J. M*. No. 3, Alwar, was bad on the ground that Munsif had no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit when it was instituted. On that ground the judgment and decree passed by the said Court is also without jurisdiction and nullity. This application of the defendants-petitioners was rejected by the learned Additional District Judge No. l, Alwar, vide his order dated 22. 12. 1994. Being aggrieved with the said order, the defendants-petitioners filed present revision. At the time of arguments of the revision, counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on a judgment of this Court passed in Ram Lal and Anr. vs. Dakha Devi and Anr. (1), decided on 06. 7. 1994, while, counsel for the non-petitioners placed reliance on Bhanwar Lal vs. Moti Lal As both these judgments are inconsistent, under these circumstances, reference was made. Counsel for the defendants-petitioners submits that the learned Munsiff had no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit when the same was filed. Ordinance No. 2/1992, is prospective and is applicable only to those suits which have been filed after the coming into force of the said Ordinance : It does not apply to the suits which were already pending when the said Ordinance came into force. In such circumstances, the learned District Judge had no jurisdiction to transfer the suit from the Court of Additional District Judge No. 2, Alwar, to the Court of A. M. J. M. No. 3, Alwar, as the transferee Court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. In such circumstances, the decree passed by the transferee court is also without jurisdiction and is nullity. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance on Samdukhan vs. Manda Lal (3), Jagdish vs. Smt. Prem Lata Rai (4), Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta and Anr. vs. Bombay Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. (5), and Ram Lal's case (supra ). On the other hand, counsel for the plaintiffs-non- petitioners submits that on account of amendment in Rajasthan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1950, by Ordinance No. 2/1992, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court of Munsif has been enhanced from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 25,000/ -. There is no saving clause in the Ordinance. In such circumstances, after amendment of Rajasthan Civil Courts Ordinance 1950, a Court a Munsif has jurisdiction to try all the suits upto the valuation of Rs. 25,000/ -. The learned District Judge has jurisdiction to transfer any suit or proceeding under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code to any other subordinate Court competent to try the same. The suit was valued at Rs. 13,800/- and as such the Distrcit Judge Alwar, had rightly transferred the same to the Court of A. M. J. M. No. 3, and the decree passed by the said Court is valid. The judgments cited by counsel for the petitioners are not relevant for deciding the reference. In Ram Lal's case (supra), the learned Single Judge did not give any reason as to why the Ordinance No. 2/1992, is not applicable to the pending suits. The learned Single Judge further did not consider Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, empowering a District Judge to transfer a suit to any other Court competent to try the same. The questions referred to the larger Bench are fully covered by the judgment of this Court in Bhanwar Lal's case (supra ). This judgment was not taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge while deciding Ram Lal's case (supra ).
(3.) WE heard learned counsel for the parties and interveners and gone through the record and the judgments cited by them. Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code reads as below: - "24. General Power of transfer and withdrawal. (1) On the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and after hearing such of them as desired to be heard, or of its own motion without such notice, the High Court or the District Court may at any stage - (a) transfer any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending before it for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same, or (b) withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in any Court subordinate to it, and (i) try or dispose of the same; or (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) retransfer the same for trial or disposal to the Court from which it was withdrawn. (2) Where any suit or proceedings has been transferred or withdrawn under sub-section (1), the Court which (is thereafter to try or dispose of such suit or proceeding) may, subject to any special directions in the case of an order of transfer, either retry it or proceed from the point at which is was transferred or withdrawn. [ (3) for the purposes of this Section, - (a) Courts of Additional and Assistant Judges shall be deemed to be subordinate to the District Court, (b) "proceeding" includes a proceedings for the execution of a decree or order. ] (4) The Court trying any suit transferred or withdrawn under this Section from a Court of Small Causes shall, for the purposes of such suit, be deemed to be a Court of Small Cases. (5) A suit or proceedings may be transferred under this section from a Court which has no jurisdiction to try it ). ]" There are three pre requisite conditions for the applicability of Section 24 C. P. C. Firstly, the Court from which the suit, appeal or proceedings are withdrawn, must be subordinate to the District Judge. Secondly, the Court to which the same are transferred must also be subordinate to the District Judge and thirdly, the transferee court must be competent to try and dispose of the same. The competency of the transferee Court is to be seen at the time when suit or proceedings are transferred and not when the same were instituted. Admittedly, the Court from which the suit was withdrawn and also the transferee Court are subordinate to the District Judge. Now only the competency of transferee Court has to be seen. ;