K.K. Usha, J.

Defendant in O.S. No. 458/90 before the Court of the Prl. Sub Judge, Kottayam and the petitioner in I.A. 2906/92 is the appellant. The suit was filed by the respondent herein for money due under a promissory note. The appellant after entering appearance in the suit filed his written statement denying the execution of the promissory note. When the suit came up for trial in the special list on 8.7.1992 the defendant was not present and the suit was decreed ex parte on 14.7.1992. LA. No. 2906/92 was filed under O. IX R.13 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the defendant for setting aside the ex parte decree. It was posted to 2.9.1994. It was then adjourned to 30.2.1992, 5.12.1992 and 6.2.1993. There after on 16.9.1993 objection was filed. It was adjourned to6.11.1993 and then to 5.1.1994 for evidence. The petition was being adjourned from time to time and it was posted to 2.9.1994. On that day the petitioner was not present. The court below dismissed the petition recording that the petitioner is not present and no evidence was adduced. The above order is under challenge in this appeal.

2. The main contention taken by the appellant is that I. A. No. 2906/92 should not have been taken up by the Kottayam Sub Court for final disposal, since Palai Sub Court had come into existence on 19.2.1994 and the jurisdiction to try the suit was with Palai Sub Court. The cause of action arises within the territorial limit of that Court. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that when the Palai Sub Court came into existence then the case before the Kottayam Sub Court which would come within the territorial jurisdiction of Palai Sub Court should go to the Palai Sub Court. This is the effect to fS.150 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The only requirement is an amendment to the Civil Court Act. No further orders are necessary for transferring the cases to the new court. In support of his contention reliance was placed by him on a decision of this Court in Achuthan & Ors. v. Karthiyayani Amma, AIR 1962 Ker. 105. In the above case the suit was originally in the District Court of Ernakulam and an order appointing a receiver was made during the trial of the suit by the same court. Subsequently, with the establishment of a court of Subordinate Judge at Cochin, whose jurisdiction covered the property involved in the suit, the entire cases was transferred to that court. The plaintiff had filed C.M.P. No. 1911/50 to call upon the receiver and his surety to make a deposit of Rs. 600/- as the income of the property under his management. This petition was also transferred to the Subordinate Judge of Cochin along with the case. The contention was that the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Cochin has no jurisdiction to pass order in the above mentioned CMP. The above contention raised by the receiver was rejected by this Court holding that the transfer of the case from the District Court at Ernakulam to the newly established court of Subordinate judge at Cochin amounts to a "transfer of business: of the court within the meaning of S.150 of the CPC and therefore the transferee court got all the powers of the transferror court, inclusive of the power to enforce the obligations of the receiver appointed in the case. The objection as to jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge was rejected.

3. We find it difficult to accept the above contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. The facts of the case in the decision in AIR 1962 Ker 105 are entirely different. A Full Bench of this Court had occasion to consider the scope of S.150 of the CPC in Packianathan Nadar Maryarul Nadar v. Mathevan Pillai Nanu Pillai, 1956 KLT 810. It was observed that the expression 'where the business of any court is transferred to any other court' occurring in S.150 CPC does not refer to the transfer of work brought about by the mere change of local jurisdiction but to the transfer of work brought about by other causes. Such transfer of work may be e