C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J.

( 1 ) THIS Transfer C. M. P. is filed seeking transfer of o. S. No. 551 of 2002 from the file of the court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tenali to the Court of the Additional Senior Civil judge, Tenali, to be tried along with O. S. No. 184 of 2002 pending in that Court.

( 2 ) WHEN the matter came up for hearing before a learned single Judge, he, by his order dated 7. 2. 2003 referred the following points to a Division Bench: (A) In view of the present language of section 115 of the Code, a revision as against an order passed by the District court under Section 24 of the Code can be maintained? (B) Whether a party who was unsuccessful before the District Court in a transfer o. P. without questioning the same either under Section 115 of the Code or under Article 227 of the constitution of India can again invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under section 24 of the Code on the ground of concurrent jurisdiction?pursuant to the above order of reference, the matter is posted before us for disposal.

( 3 ) SINCE the learned Counsel for the parties made their submissions not only on the questions referred to us but on the merits of the transfer petition also, we are answering the points referred and are also disposing of the transfer petition, point (a)

( 4 ) PRIOR to 1999 Amendment, proviso to Section 115 (1) C. P. C. read:"provided that the High Court shall not, under this Section, vary or reverse any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except where (a) the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding, or (b) the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made. "after 1999 Amendment, proviso to section 115 (1) C. P. C. reads:"provided that the High Court shall not, under this Section, vary or reverse any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except where the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings. "as seen from the above, by 1999 amendment clause (b) of the proviso to section 115 (1) is omitted and clause (a) is added to the main proviso itself. A transfer petition filed before the District Court is a proceeding . Since any order, either allowing or refusing to transfer a suit from one Court to another, finally disposes of the transfer petition, there can be little doubt that such order is amenable to revision both prior and subsequent to 1999 Amendment to C. P. C. Therefore, we hold that revision against an order passed in a petition filed under Section 24 C. P. C. , either allowing or refusing to transfer a suit or proceeding by the District court is maintainable. The point is answered accordingly. Point (b)

( 5 ) SECTION 24 C. P. C. reads:"24 (1) On the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and after hearing such of them as desired to be heard, or of its own motion without such notice, the High Court or the District Court may at any state (a) transfer any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending before it for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same; or (B) 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; or (iii) retransfer the same for trial or disposal to the Court from which it was withdrawn. (2) Where any suit or proceeding has been transferred or withdrawn under sub-section (1), the Court which is thereafter to try or dispose of such suit or proceeding may, subject to any special directions in the case of an order of transfer, either re-try it or proceed from the poin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document