SHINGHAL, J—This is an application in revision of defendant Bhanwarlal against the order of Additional Munsiff No. 1, Jodhpur, dated May 1, 1970, rejecting the challenge to the jurisdiction and the competence of his court to try the suit.

2. The suit was instituted in the court of Civil Judge, Jodhpur, on 3 6-1967, as its value was Rs. 2,660/- and it was not triable by the Munsiff whose pecuniary jurisdiction was up to Rs. 2,000/-. The learned District Judge transferred the suit for trial to Additional Civil Judge, Jodhpur. By virtue of the delegation of the State Governments powers under sub sec. (2) of sec. 19 of the Rajasthan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1950, hereinafter referred to as "the Ordinance", the High Court issued a notification under clause (b) of the proviso to sub-sec. (1) of sec. 19 directing that the jurisdiction of the munsiffs named in the notification shall, with effect from October 2, 1969, extend to the hearing and determination of any suit or original proceeding of which the value does not exceed Rs. 5,000/-. The Registrar of the High Court issued letter No. Gen./II/28/69/10498 dated September 2, 1969 bringing the aforesaid direction to the notice of all the subordinate courts and clarifying that for the present, civil suits and original proceedings of which the value does not exceed Rs 5 000/-, pending in the court of Civil Judges, shall not be transferred to the munsiffs but shall continue to be heard and determined by them. This was followed by another order dated January 23, 1970, by which the Registrar informed all the District Judges that all civil suits of the value of Rs. 5,000/- and below, pending in the courts of Civil Judges, may be transferred by them under sec. 24 C.P.C. to the munsiffs having jurisdiction to try them. The District Judge of Jodhpur then passed an order on February 7, 1970 transferring the present case for trial to Additional Munsiff No. 1, Jodhpur, under sec. 24 C.P.C. The case therefore stood transferred to Additional Munsiff No. 1. The defendants moved an application on April 2, 1970 raising an objection that Additional Munsiff No. 1 had no jurisdiction to try the suit. As that objection has been rejected by the learned Additional Munsiff on May 1, 1970, as aforesaid, defendant Bhanwarlal has come up in revision to this court.

3. It has been argued by Mr. Maloo, learned counsel for the defendant-applicant, that in the absence of any law depriving the Additional Civil Judge of his jurisdiction to try the suit it was not legal for the learned District Judge to transfer it for trial to a lower court, namely, the court of Additional Munsiff No. 1, Jodhpur. He has tried to support his argument by a reference to Vaithilingam Chetty vs. Raliaperumal Mudali (1), Jannat Husain vs. Gulam Kutubiddin Ahmad (2), Venugopala Reddiar vs. Krishnaswami Reddiar alias Raja Chidambara Reddiar(3), C.P. Bannerjee vs. B. S. Irani(4), M/s Gordhandas, Baldevdas vs. The Governor General in Council(5), Cyril Austin Spencer alias Cyril Spencer vs. M H. Spencer(6), Ranulal vs. Dnudas (7), Doongarmal vs. Roopsingh (8), and Lakshmi Narain vs. First Additional District Judge, Allahabad (9). On the other hand Mr. Chhangani has argued that a case can validly be transferred to a court when, at the time of the transfer, it has jurisdiction to try it even though there may be no such jurisdiction in that court when the case was instituted. He has supported his argument by a reference to certain observations in Sarjudei vs. Rampati Kanwari (10) with respect to the scope of sec. 24 CPC.

4. I have already set out the facts and the developments bearing on the question of the jurisdiction of Additional Munsiff No 1, Jodhpur, and they are not at all in dispute. It is also not disputed that the notification issued by the High Court on September 1, 1969, referred to above, is a valid notification. It follows, therefore, that with effect from October 2, 1969, when the direction in the notification became effective in regard t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document