( 1 ) THE petitioner is the plaintiff, he filed OS No. 1519 of 1980 on the file of the District Munsifs court, vijayawada for perpectual injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with her possession of the plaint schedule property. Along with the plaint she filed an application I A no 5887 of 1980 for ad-interim injunction pending the suit. On 29-11-1980 an exparte order of injunction was passed and it was made absolute on 3-2 81. Against the said order, an appeal, being CMA No 7 of 1981, was filed in the Sub Court. Vijayawada. In the meanwhile the respondent has taken an objection in the suit regarding the valuation given in the suit and the objection was upheld and found that the court of District Munsif has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and an order to return the plaint was passed. Against the order to return the plaint for presentation before a proper Court a C R P has been filed in this court, and the same was dismissed. Subsequently the suit was presented before the court of the Subordinate Judge, and it was numbered as O S No. 447 of 1982, which is now pending on the file of Second Addl. Subordinate judge s court, Vijayawada.

( 2 ) WHEN the CMA came up for hearing before the Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada, the subsequent event that happened viz. , the finding that the trial court does not have pecuniary jurisdiction to try the case and returned the plaint and presentation to the proper court, were taken note of and the appellate court held that the order of injunction is void, because the court of District munsif has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. On that basis the order of injunction was set aside. Against the order of the present CRP has been filed.

( 3 ) SHRI. Dhanurbhanudu, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that on the date when the order of injunction was issued, the court of district Munsif has jurisdiction, since it entertained the suit, numbered it and issued the order of injunction. Merely because at a later date it was found that the court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit, the order of injunction passed by that court cannot be said to be nullity. By virtue of the order to return the plaint to be presented before the proper court and its presentation before the subordinate Judge s court, the business of the court of the District Munsif in the suit stands transferred to the court of the Subordinate judge and therefore the proceedings taken prior to the transfer are valid, being continuation of the proceedings of the court of District Munsif hence the order passed by the District Munsif is legal unless it is found by the appellate court on merits as being illegal and set aside. By virtue of the order returning the plaint, Ipso facto the order of injunction passed earlier, cannot be said to have become void. In support of this contention the learned counsel placed strong reliance upon the decision of the supreme court in Kiran Singh vs. Chaman Paswan (1) air 1954 SC 340 a full bench decision of Patna High Court in Ramdeo Singh vs. Rajanarain (2) AIR 1949 Patna, 278 a Full Bench decision of Allahabad high Court in Moolchand vs. Ram kishan (3) AIR. 1933 Allahabad 249 and another Full bench decision of the Madras High court in Kelu Achan vs. Cheriya Parvathi (4) AIR 1924 madras, 6.

( 4 ) IN addition, on the principle of transfer and re-presentation, strong reliance was placed by the learnedcounsel on the decision of the Madras high Caurt in Ramaswamy vs. Veerayan raja (5) AIR 1941 Madras 711 and of the transfer of the business as contemplated by Section 150, strong reliance was placed on the decision of the supreme Court in Howrah Insurance company vs. S M Das Gupta (6) AIR 1975 SC 2051 Mouna Guruswamy naicker vs. Shekh Muhammadhurow ther (7) AIR 1923 Mad. 92, and in achuthan vs. Karthiya Vani Amma (8) air 1962 Kerala 105.

( 5 ) SHRI A. Suryanarayana Murthy learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that on the return of