Dawson-Miller, C.J:— This is an application on behalf of Shaikh Jannat Husain, defendant 2 in the suit, petitioning the Court, in exercise of its powers of revision, to set aside an order of the District Judge of Patna, dated 31st January 1920, refusing to set aside a previous order whereby he had transferred the case for hearing to the 1st Munsif's Court at Patna.
2. The suit was originally instituted by the plaintiffs against the petitioner and others in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, 3rd Court, at Patna, for recovery of possession of about 13 bighas of land in Mouza Chhaturbhujpur Kishunpur, situate within the local limits of the Barh Munsifi. The value of the suit was between Rs. 1,003 and Rs. 2,000. The jurisdiction of the Munsif of Barh is the ordinary jurisdiction of a Munsif and does not exceed Rs. 1,000. It is admitted that the local limits of the Patna Munsifi do not include the area covered by the Barh Munsifi, and although the Patna Munsifi had jurisdiction over suits up to the value of Rs. 2,000, this being a suit which did not arise within the local limits of his jurisdiction, it was properly instituted in the first instance before the Subordinate Judge at Patna. On 14th January last, by the orders of the District Judge, a number of cases, including the present suit, were transferred from the file of the Subordinate Judge to the file of the Munsif, 2nd Court, Patna, and by a subsequent order, dated 28th January on the application of the plaintiffs, the District Judge transferred the present suit from the file of the Munsif, 2nd Court, at Patna, to that of the Munsif, 1st Court, Patna. The petitioner thereupon filed a petition before the District Judge, praying that the transfer of the suit to the Munsif, 1st Court, Patna, might to set aside on the ground that he was not competent to try the same, and that the District Judge had no power under Section 24(2) of the CPC, to transfer the case for trial by the Munsif in question. The question for determination is whether the District Judge in the circumstances mentioned had power to transfer the case to the Munsif whose local jurisdiction did not include the area in which the suit arose. The section provides that
“on the application of any of the parties …… the High Court or the District Court may at any stage …… 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.”
3. The short question for determination is, what is the meaning of the word “competent” in the section just referred to. In my opinion the Court is not competent to try the suit unless it has jurisdiction to do so. The jurisdiction of a Court depends not merely upon the nature or subject-matter of the suit but also, in the case of most subordinate Courts, upon the pecuniary value of the suit, and in the case of all upon the local limits of their jurisdiction. Under S. 19, Act 12 of 1887, the ordinary jurisdiction of a Munsif extends, only to suits of which the value does not exceed Rupees 1,000, and to that extent the Munsif has the jurisdiction conferred by that section. By sub-S. (2), however the Local Government may, on the recommendation of the High Court, direct, by notification in the Official Gazette with respect to any Munsif named therein, that his jurisdiction shall extend to all like suits of such value not exceeding Rs. 2,000 as may be specified in the notification. The Local Government therefore may confer an extended jurisdiction upon Munsifs, but that extended jurisdiction is only such as may be specified in the notification. The notification conferring an extended jurisdiction upon the Munsif in question, Babu Krishna Sahay, is No. 12A, dated 23rd April, 1919, published in the Bihar and Orissa Gazette of 30th April that year, and it vests the Munsif with powers to try under the ordinary procedure original suits up to Rs. 2,000 in value arising within the local limits of the Patna Munsifi. It seems clear therefore that the Munsif had no jurisdiction to try a suit arising outside his own Munsifi. The Courts to which the District Judge may transfer a case for trial under Section 24 of the CPC, must be Courts competent to try the same, that is, Courts having jurisdiction to do so, and the mere fact that the District Judge transferred a case for trial from one Court subordinate to his jurisdiction to another similar Court does not confer jurisdiction upon the Court to which the case is transferred, unless it were competent originally to try the suit.
4. I can find nothing either in the Code of Civil Procedure or in Act 12 of 1887 which confers any such powers upon the District Judge. The District Judge, without dealing in any way with the facts or arguments set out in the petition before him, dismissed the application in the following words: “The Munsif is competent to try the suit. My order of transfer will therefore stand.” The learned Judge gives no reason for the view taken by him as to the competency of the Munsif to try the suit, and it is impossible to know upon what grounds his decision was arrived at. It is unfortunate that he should have disposed of the matter in this summary manner. In my opinion he acted without jurisdiction and the order of transfer must be set aside. The applicant is entitled to his costs. Hearing fee two gold mohurs.
5. Das, J.:— I agree with my Lord the Chief Justice that the order of transfer passed by the learned District Judge ought, in the circumstances of the case, to be set aside. The express ground on which I desire to base my decision is that, the suit not arising within the local limits of the Patna Munsifi, the learned Mansif, to whose file the suit was transferred by the order of the District Judge, was not competent to try or dispose of the same. The suit was above Rs. 1,000 and it is conceded that the learned Munsif, to whose file the suit was transferred, had special jurisdiction up to Rs. 2,000 only as to suits arising within the local limits of the Patna Munsifi. The suit did not arise within the local limits of the Patna Munsifi, and, having regard to the value of the suit, the learned Munsif was, in my view, incompetent to try or dispose of the same. I am however unable to agree with my Lord as to the meaning which he has attached to the word “competent” in S. 24(a) of the Code, Having regard to the conclusion at which I have arrived, it is unnecessary to deal with this matter at length, except to say that I reserve to myself the liberty to examine the meaning of the word “competent” in S. 24(a) of the Code if and when the occasion arises.
V.S/R.K
6. Order set aside.