1. This is an application in revision from an order, dated 15th May 1930. transferring a case from the Court of the Additional Munsif of Benares to the Court of the Munsif of Haveli The suit was for recovery of haq. chaharum and was not cognizable by a Court of Small Causes. It was originally filed in the Court of the City Munsif of Benares who had territorial jurisdiction to try it. The District Judge suo motu transferred the case to the Court of the Additional Munsif who apparently had concurrent jurisdiction. Subsequently the plaintiffs made an application to the District Judge totransfer the case from that Court to the Munsif of Haveli, because there was no Presiding Officer for the Additional Munsifi at the time. The learned Judge without issuing notice to the defendant ordered the transfer to the Court of the Munsif of Haveli. Although it was open to the learned Judge to proceed suo motu and transfer the case from one Court to another Court competent to try it, yet when he was moved by the plaintiffs, he was bound to issue notice to the opposite party and to hear such party if it desired to be heard. The provisions of Section 24, Sub-section (1) were accordingly not complied with and the order of the learned Judge, even if not without jurisdiction, is certainly tainted with material irregularity: vide Fatema Begatn v. Imdad Ali AIR 1920 All 249.
2. It has been further contended before us that the District Judge in the exercise of his power under Section 24 can transfer a case to only such other Court as is competent to try or dispose of the suit. Section 24, Sub-section (1),Sub-clause (b)(ii) does provide that the Court to which the case is transferred should be competent to try or dispose of the same. That obviously means that, if there had been no order of transfer and the suit would have been originally filed in the Court to which it has been transferred, that Court would have been competent to try and dispose of it. It follows that a Court would not be competent to try and dispose of the suit, if it does not possess both pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to entertain it. This was the view expressed in a Patna case Jannat Husain v. Gulam Kutubaddin Ahmad AIR 1920 Pat 29. As the words of the Statute are in no way limited, we agree with the view expressed therein. The learned Judge should accordingly bear this view of the matter in mind. We allow this revision and setting aside the order of the District Judge, direct him to dispose of the plaintiffs' application after issuing notice to the defendant and hearing him.