The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the Provisions of Section 96 of CPC regarding the jurisdiction of the court to hear appeals from the decision of the court exercising original jurisdiction.

( 1 ) THIS civil revision petition is referred to the division bench by the learned single judge (justice n. d. v. bhat) under Section 8 (2) of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961. The civil revision petition is preferred against the order dated 4-2-1989 passed by the principal civil judge, chikodi in r. a. No. 51 of 1987. By the said Order, the learned civil judge took the view that having regard to the fact that the decree in question was passed by the learned additional munsiff, chikodi, the learned civil judge had the power to try and dispose of the appeal preferred against such a decree notwithstanding the fact that the suit in question was transferred to the file of the court of munsiff, chikodi from the file of the court of munsiff, raibag. It will have to be seen as to whether the view taken by the learned civil judge is correct.

( 2 ) WE have heard the arguments of Sri Balakrishna Shastry, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri F. S. Dabali, learned counsel for respondents 2 to 6.

( 3 ) THE point for consideration is as to whether the learned civil judge, chikodi has the jurisdiction to hear r. a. No. 51 of 1987 arising out of the judgment and decree in o. s. No. 146 of 1963 passed by the court of munsiff, chikodi. The circumstances under which the suit was tried by the learned munsiff, chikodi are already alluded to earlier. The property in question is admittedly situated within the jurisdiction of the court of munsiff, raibag. However, the said proceeding namely, the decree final proceeding was transferred to the court of munsiff, chikodi by the district judge by his order dated 14-7-1986 acting under Section 24 of CPC. In other words, the court of the additional munsiff, chikodi who tried the said suit (decree final proceeding) was a transferee court. It is in that context, this court is required to see as to whether the appeal lies to the civil judge, chikodi of whether the appeal ought to have been preferred to the civil judge to whom an appeal lies against the decree passed by the court of munsiff at raibag. In order to resolve this question it is indeed necessary to extract the Provisions of Section 96 of CPC. We hasten to add here that Section 96 of the CPC is not intended to create a forum for preferring an appeal but it is only a provision conferring rights of appeal on the parties. Even so, a careful reading of the said provision would indeed provide a clue to the question as regards as to what could be the appellate forum in a situation like the one in hand. Section 96 of the CPC reads as under:"appeal from original decree. (1) save where otherwise expressly provided in the body of this code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie from every decree passed by any court exercising original jurisdiction to the court authorised to hear appeals from the decisions of such court. (2) an appeal may lie from an original decree passed ex parte. (3) no appeal shall lie from a decree passed by the court with the consent of parties. (4) no appeal shall lie, except on a question of law, from a decree in any suit of the nature cognizable by courts of small causes, when the amount or value of the subject matter of the original suit does not exceed three thousand rupees. "a careful perusal of the Provisions of Section 96, CPC and in particular the provision of Section 96 (1) would clearly go to show that an appeal against a decree of court exercising original jurisdiction would lie to the court authorised to hear appeals from the decision of such court. The word 'such' incorporated in Section 96, CPC, would indeed as pointed out earlier provides some clue. Sri Shastry, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the original jurisdiction in the suit in question is that of the court of munsiff, raibag, and it cannot be said that the original jurisdiction in the instant case is that of the court of munsiff, chikodi. It was therefore contended by Sri Shastry that an appe