Chandra Prakash, J.
1. This is a defendants application in revision against the order dated 7-10-1974 of Sri Umesh Chandra, .Second Additional District Judge, Meerut, dismissing the applicant's revision.
2. The suit giving rise to this Appeal was filed by the plaintiff opposite parties against the defendant applicant for the recovery of Rs. 853/- as arrears of rent, Rs. 499.20 P. as mesne profits and ejectment in the court of Munsif, Ghaziabad on the regular side in respectof the property detailed in the plaint. Later on, the suit was transferred to the court of Second Additional Civil Judge, Ghaziabad to be tried an the Small Causes Court side in view of Act No. 37 of U..P. Civil Laws Amendment Act, 1972.
3. The defendant applicant filed an objection that the suit could not be tried on the small Causes Court side. The Second Civil Judge after hearing the iparties came to the conclusion that he had jurisdiction to try the suit on the Small Causes Court side and he, therefore, rejected the application of the applicant by Ms order dated 28-3-1974.
4. Against the above order, the applicant filed a revision in the court of District Judge, Meerut which was eventually transferred to the court of Second Additional District Judge, Meerut for dis-posal. The learned Additional District Judge after hearing the parties dismissed the applicant's revision and confirmed the order of the trial court dated 28-3-1974.
5. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant applicant has come up in revision before me.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and I have also gone through the record of the case and I have come to the conclusion that the orders of the courts below cannot be allowed to stand.
7. Certain facts are not disputed The suit was filed in the court of Munsif. Ghaziabad on 20-10-1972 on regular side. There is no dispute that Munsif, Ghaziabad on 20-10-1972 had jurisdiction to entertain the suit on the regular side. The U. P. Civil Laws Amendment Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') came into operation on 20-9-1972. The High Court by its Notification No. 526 dated October 25, 1972 conferred powers on the Civil Judges and Munsifs where there is no Court of Small Causes to try cases as Judge Small Causes in suits upto the value specified below:--
The first contention raised by the applicant is that under the above Notification No. 526 dated 25-10-1972 the Civil Judge and Munsif, Ghaziabad got no powers to try cases as Judge Small Causes Court. This contention was considered in detail by a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Revn. No. 821 of 1975, reported in : AIR1975All420 Salik Chand v. Mohan Lal and the Division Bench after considering the effect of the above Notification came to the conclusion that the powers of the Judge Small Causes Court were conferred on the Civil Judge, and Munsif, Ghaziabad under the above Notification to try suits as Judge Small Causes Court upto the valuation stated therein. It was contended on behalf of the applicant that the above case requires reconsideration. The decision of the Bench dated 12-5-1975 appears to be correct as there is hardly any reason to revise it and I am bound by it. This contention on behalf of the applicant, therefore, must fail. The second contention raised before me was that the suit was instituted in the court of Munsif, Ghaziabad on 20-10-1972 and on that date he had no powers to try cases as Judge Small Causes Court. Even the Second Additional Civil Judge, Ghaziabad had no power to try the suit as Judge Small Causes Court.
The jurisdiction of Munsif, Ghaziabad and Second Additional Civil Judge, Ghaziabad to try cases as Judge Small Causes Court was conferred by the Notification dated25-10-1972. It is, therefore, clear that when the suit was filed the Munsif, Ghaziabad and Second Civil Judge had no powers to try the suit as Judge Small Causes Court. The Munsif, Ghaziabad had jurisdiction to try on the regular side and it was rightly instituted. It was, however, contended that under the Act, the District Judge had no power to transfer the case which has been instituted on the regular side to another court subsequently for trying it on the Judge Small Causes Court side. This contention appears to be wel founded. Section 9 of the Act is as follows: --'9. Transitory provisions. Any suit of the nature referred to in the proviso to subsection (1) and Sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 (whether its value exceeds two thousand rupees, or as the case may be, one thousand rupees, or not) or the proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, instituted before the date of commencement of this Act in any court other than a Court of Small Causes or a Court of Civil Judge or Munsif exercising jurisdiction of a Judge of a Court of Small Causes and pending in that court immediately before the said date, not being a suit in which the recording of oral evidence for any part has commenced or conclude' before the said date, shall upon the conferment of jurisdiction or enhanced pecuniary jurisdiction on a Civil Judge, Munsif, District Judge or Additional District Judge or on a Court of Small Causes under the said provisions stand transferred to such court and shall be decided by that court.'
8. Under the above section, a suit pending on 20-9-1972 or instituted before that date could stand transferred to Munsif, Civil Judge etc. to try it as Judge Small Causes Court having powers of Judge Small Causes Court provided the oral evidence not commenced. Section 9 does not apply, for this case was not instituted either on 20-9-1972 or before it. This case was instituted after 20-9-1972 and therefore Section 9 is inapplicable to the present case. There is no power under the Act by which the District Judge could transfer a suit instituted after 20-9-1972 on the regular side to any other court and Judge Small Causes Court for trying it as Judge Small Causes Court. Section 32 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act is as follows:
'32. (1) So much of Chapters III and IV as relate to-
(a) the nature of the suits cognizable by Courts of Small Causes,
(b) the exclusion of the jurisdiction of other Courts in those suits,
(c) the practice and procedure of courts of Small Causes,
(d) appeal from certain orders of those Courts and revision of cases decided by them, and
(e) the finality of their decrees and orders subject to such appeal and revision as are provided by this Act.
(Chap. V Supplement provisions) applies to Courts invested by or under any enactment for the time being in force with the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes so far as regards the exercise of that jurisdiction by those Courts.
(2) Nothing in Sub-section (1) with respect to Courts invested with the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes applies to suits instituted or proceedings commenced in those Courts before the date on which they were invested with that jurisdiction.'
9. Sub-section (2) above, points out that suits instituted or proceedings commenced in courts before the jurisdiction to try the cases as Judge Small Causes conferred on them have to be tried on the regular side notwithstanding the fact that subsequently the jurisdiction is conferred on them to try on the Small Causes Court side.
10. I was not referred to any authority for the proposition that the District Judge can transfer a case from the court of Munsif instituted on the regular side to any other court to be Wed on the Small Causes Court side. My attention on behalf of the opposite parties was drawn to AIR 1938 Oudh 224 Gulzari Singh v. Ram Adhin and AIR 1941 Oudh 161 Abdula Khan v. Tribhuan Dutt Singh, but both the rulings are distinguishable in fact and they did not lay down a proposition that a suit instituted on the regular side in the court of Munsif can be transferred by the District Judge subsequently to the court of Small Causes Judge for being tried under the Small Cause Courts Act.
11. The second Civil Judge, therefore, has jurisdiction to try the suit giving rise to this application in revision on the regular side and he could not try on the Small Causes Court's side.
12. For the reasons given above, the application in revision is allowed and the orders of the courts below are set aside and the applicant is directed to try the suit on the regular side. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs in this case. The record shall be sent expeditiously to the trial court for proceeding in the case on the regular side.