A change in jurisdiction does not affect pending cases.

Bijitendra Mohan Mitra, J.

This is an application under s. 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure for transfer of a pending lis from the concerned Court of South 24 Parganas to that of North -24 Parganas. The connected suit was for partition and, as usual, as a partition suit, the suit is an old one of the year of 1973. The said suit was decreed in a preliminary form on 25th August, 1989 and thereafter steps are being taken in the pending lis for drawing up of the final decree. In fact, this Court has been apprised that approximately four sittings of the Commission has already taken place and it is in the process of continuation. . The filing of the present petition under s. 24 CPC is preceded by filing of an earlier petition which is one of composite nature under s. 115 CPC read with s. 24 CPC and this Court summarily rejected the said petition as, according 10 the opinion of this Court, such a petition of composite nature is not maintainable. It has been contended that as the Court did not advert into the merit of the petition but as the form of the petition appeared to be defective because of the conglomeration of composite aspects of s. 115 read with s. 24 CPC, therefore, there was no disposal of the said petition on merits and, as such, dismissal of the earlier petition shall not bar the presentation of the instant petition under s. 24 CPC. This Court has allowed the petitioner to move this petition under s. 24 CPC after being prima facie satisfied upon the bone of contention raised by the petitioner in the instant petition and the petitioner has invited scrutiny by this Court with regard to the point sought to be raised in this petition.

2. Mr. Bagchi, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has contended that on the material date of filing of the suit there was a composite district known as 24 Parganas which was bi-furcated and the said bi-furcation into North 24 Parganas and South 24 Parganas was put into effect from 2nd January, 1989. According to Mr. Bagchi, after the original composite district was bi-furcated, the original district as pre-existing lost its entity and new districts have emerged in lieu and instead of the old one. According to Mr. Bagchi, the suit after being tried should not be allowed to continue before a forum of a district which is non-existing and, as such, it should be allowed to be transferred to the concerned Court of North 24 Parganas which has assumed jurisdiction. A reference may be made to the notification, vide Order No. 438-G dated 26.11.88, from which it appears that the same was given effect to from 2.1.89 as a result whereof the previous district of 24 Par-l ganas, was bi-furcated into two separate districts and the police stations to be covered under North 24 Parganas District were mentioned in the said notification. It is significant to mention that a preliminary decree was passed by the concerned Court as early as on 25.8.89 when the notification did not come into effect. Pursuant to the preliminary decree, a final decree was attempted to be drawn up and no objection was taken at the time of drawing up of the preliminary decree. Now the objection that has been sought to be raised is at a juncture when several sittings of the Partition Commissioner have already taken place. It further appears that from 2.1.89 much time has been allowed to pass and many things have happened in the pending lis.

3. Mr. Bhattacharjee, appearing on behalf of the caveator-objector has tried to repeal to an obiter dictum of a Division Bench judgment of Patna High Court reported in AIR. 1856 Patna 280 in the case of Iswar Mahato & Anr. vs. Naipal Singh & Ors. Though the observations made by the Division Bench of Patna High Court were in the nature of an obiter dictum but still to clarify doubts, so that the same may be a guideline, it has been observed there that' a mere notification issued by the State Government under Ss. 13(1), 14(1) of Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act altering t