The main legal point established in the judgment is that certain defects of procedure can be cured by waiver, and the inherent jurisdiction of the court allows it to try a suit despite procedural irregularities.

Reuben, J.

1. This appeal by the defts. is directed against a decision of the Additional Dist. J. of Monghyr. confirming the decree of the Additional Munsif, Third Court, Monghyr, dismissing Title Suit No. 161/822-of 1945/1946.

2. The facts of the suit need not be stated as Mr. Lal Narayan Sinha for the appellants, frankly admits that in second appeal he cannot challenge the decision on the merits. The point he raises is one relating to jurisdiction. The suit was instituted on 7-12-1945 in the court of the Munsif, Second Court, Monghyr. On 16-8-194S by an order of the Dist. J., it was transferred to the Addl. Munsif, Second Court, Monghyr. On 20-9-1946, the record of the case was sent to the Additional Munsif, Third Court, Monghyr, with an endorsement of the Additional Munsif, Second Court, on the order-sheet :

"Transferred to the file of 3rd Additional Munsif in anticipation of Dist. Js order."

The hearing of the suit was taken up by the Additional, Munsif, Third Court that very day, & judgment was delivered on 12-11-1946. The appeal against this decision was disposed of by the Additional Dist. J. on 12-5-1947. In neither Court was the question of jurisdiction raised. It was raised for the first time in second appeal, & on a reference from this Court, the Dist. J. has reported that there is no trace of any order of the Dist. J. as contemplated by the endorsement dated 20-9-1946. No record is found of any reference having been made by either of the two Munsifs to the Dist. J. for such an order. We may, therefore, proceed on the basis that there was no order of the Dist. J. sanctioning the transfer of the suit from the Court of the Second Additional Munsif to that of the third Additional Munsif.

3. Mr. Lal Narayan Sinha admits that, as to place, valuation, subject-matter & person, the third Addtional Munsif had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. But he contends that, as the suit was in the seisin of the second Additional Munsif, it could not, without an order of transfer Under Sec.24 of the Civil P. C., have been dealt with by the Third Additional Munsif. His point is that not more than one Ct. can be in seisin of of a suit at one time.

4. In support of his contention, he cites Chokkalinga Pillay V/s. Velayudha Mudaliar, AIR (12) 1925 Mad 117. In that case after the institution of a mortgage suit in the Kumbakonam Court the local jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the suit was transferred to the Mayavaram Court. Nevertheless, the Kumbakonam Court proceeded with the suit & disposed of it. In a subsequent suit to challenge the validity of the decree, it was held that, once a Court has seisin of a case, it does not lose its jurisdiction to try it by reason of a general order transferring the local iurisdiction to another Court. On the facts, that decision does not help us here, as what we have to consider is the effect of a trial by a Court other than the one which had originally the seisin of the case. Jagannath Prasad V/s. Sheonandan, 5 Pat L J 304. also cited by Mr. Lal Narayan Sinha, is equally distinguishable. It related to the execution of a mortgage decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, First Court, Gaya. Under the orders of the Dist. J. passed subsequent to the decree, the business In the Subordinate Judges file arising within the area in which the mortgaged property was situate was transferred to the Subordinate Judge, Third Court Gaya. An, application was made to the Subordinate Judge, First Court for executing the decree. Under a misapprehension regarding his jurisdiction, the Subordinate Judge returned the application to the filing pleader to be refiled in the proper Court. Accordingly, the petition was filed before the Subordinate Judge, Third Court who entertained it in spile of an objection by the J. D. regarding his jurisdiction. The execution proceeded to the sale of the J. Ds property. In appeal, the order of the Subordinate Judge, Third Court was set aside by the Dist. J. on the ground that, unde