1. This is an application in revision against the order of the Additional Munsif, Jaipur City West, dated 1-11-1954, rejecting the objection as to jurisdiction.
2. The respondents Bhonrilal and Shankerlal filed a suit in the Court of Munsif, Jairpur City East against the petitioner Chouthmal for recovery of Rs. 550/-. It was transferred to the Court of Additional Munsif, Jaipur City, Mr. Dwarka Das Gupta, by order of the District Judge, dated 15-9-1954.
The High Court by an order of the same date, which was received in the Court of the District Judge on 17-9-1954, appointed Mr. D.D. Gupta as Additional Munsif, Jaipur City West, instead of Additional Munsif, Jaipur City. On 11-10-1954, an application was moved that the Court was not competent to try the suit.
The learned Additional Munsif by his order of 1-11-1954, held that the case had been transfered by the District Judge under Section 24 Civil P.C., and the competency referred to in Section 24 related to pecuniary jurisdiction and not to territorial jurisdiction.
The petitioner has come in revision, and it is contended on his behalf on the authority of Ram Das v. Habib Ullah, 1933 All 178 (1) (AIR V 20) (A) and Jannat Hussain v. Gulam Kutabuddin, 1920 Pat 29 (AIR V 7) (B) that the Court to which a case was to be transferred should be competent both as regards pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction.
With great respect I am unable to follow the view taken in the above cases. In most cases the territorial jurisdiction to try a suit is vested in only one Court, and it would be impossible to transfer a case to any other Court, if the view propounded in the aforesaid two cases were to be accepted.
The competency referred to in Section 24 must be taken to be only with respect to the pecuniary jurisdiction, and I find support for this view in Kishore Lal v. Balkishan, 1932 All 660 (AIR, V 19) (C) and Parshottamdas Chunnilal v. Bhagubhai Nathubhai, 1932 Bom 486 (AIR V 19) (D). The same view has been taken in F. E. Geyer v. M. M. Geyer, 1949 Lah 34 (AIR V 36) (FB) (E). The contention raised above has no force.
3. The next ground of objection is that when Mr. D.D. Gupta was appointed as Additional Munsif for Jaipur City West only, he ceased to have jurisdiction over this case. The contention is not without force. Mr. D.D. Gupta was appointed as Additional Munsif, Jaipur City, on 16-7-53. He was then Additional Munsif both for East and West, and the allotment of cases from either Court of Munsif, Jaipur City East, and Munsif, Jaipur City West, could be done for the Court presided by Mr. D.D. Gupta.
When an Additional Munsif is appointed for any area it is not a separate Court. The Court is one, although there are two officers to whom the work is allotted for administrative reasons. But when Mr. D. D. Gupta was appointed as Additional Munsif for Jaipur City West only, all those cases which pertained to the Court of Munsif, Jaipur City East, did not remain triable by him, and they should have been made over to the Munsif, Jaipur City East.
It was, however, competent for the District Judge to order for the transfer of all or any of such cases which pertained to the Court of Munsif, Jaipur City East, to the Court of Munsif, Jaipur City West, and further to allot the same to the Court of Mr. D.D. Gupta, who was the Additional Munsif for Jaipur City West.
As no such order has been passed, and thecase is at a preliminary stage, it is directed thatthe case is triable by the Court of Munsif, JaipurCity East, and is transferred accordingly from theCourt of Additional Munsif, Jaipur City West.