(1) LEAVE granted.

(2) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties finally in this appeal.

(3) THE limited notice was issued in these proceedings at SLP stage to the following effect:

"ISSUE notice limited to the questions: (7) Once the amendment was granted, whether the trial court should have passed order under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, for returning the plaint for presentation before proper court; (2) Whether under these circumstances, the learned District Judge should have exercised administrative power under Section 24 without hearing the petitioner. Issue notice on stay application. Ad interim stay of further proceedings of Transferred Suit No. 359 of 1991 (renumbered as Title Suit No. 2 of 1996), pending before the Xth Additional District Judge, Alipore, South 24 Parganas (W.B.)"

(4) WHEN the appeal was heard finally, the second point which, in our view, requires a closer scrutiny, arose for consideration. We are not inclined to consider the first point which appears to us, on the facts of this case, to be of a technical nature.

(5) SO far as the second point is concerned, a few relevant facts may be noted for appreciating the same. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit in the Second Court of the learned Munsiff, Alipore for declaration that the deed of settlement in the form of a trust deed executed by her in favour of the appellant trust was not legal and valid and also prayed for consequential relief of injunction against the trustees. The said suit was registered as Title Suit No. 359 of 1991 in the Court of the learned Munsiff, Alipore, South 24 Parganas (W.B.).

(6) WHEN the suit had proceeded further, at the evidence stage, an amendment was moved by the respondent by which a prayer for possession of the suit properties was inserted. The appellants herein did not contest the said amendment. Thus, the amendment sought for was allowed. The result was that the original suit valuation of Rs 100 got enlarged to Rs 5,00,100 beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned Munsiff. It is at this stage that the respondent herein moved an application before the learned District Judge, Alipore, bringing to his notice the said order passed by the learned Munsiff, requesting the learned District Judge to assign the suit to an appropriate court within his jurisdiction.

(7) LEARNED District Judge by his order dated 14-12-1995 stated that he has perused the application. This application obviously could have been filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure and had, in fact, been filed under the same, as the said order says. The order recites that on a perusal of the application supported by the affidavit filed by the plaintiff and the xerox copy of the orders passed in TS No. 359 of 1991 by the Munsiff, 2nd Court, Alipore, enclosed therewith, it appeared that the learned Munsiff, 2nd Court, Alipore, was not empowered to try such suit, which is valued beyond Rs 30,000. Hence, by invoking the power conferred on the learned District Judge under Section 24 CPC, the title suit was ordered to be transferred from the file of the learned Munsiff, 2nd Court, Alipore, to the file of the 10th Assistant District Judge, Alipore for disposal.

(8) THE said order of the learned District Judge was challenged before the High Court. The learned Single Judge of the High Court by his impugned order, which is the subject-matter of this appeal, took the view, amongst others, that the learned District Judge, Alipore, had exercised powers under Section 24 CPC in his administrative capacity and, therefore, in the absence of any inherent defect in such orders, no question of exercising the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arose.

(9) SHRI A.K. Ganguli, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants vehemently contended before us that the aforesaid observations of the learned Single Judge of the High Court are not borne out from the nature of the order which was sc