1975 Supreme(Mad) 495
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, J.
N. Ram Mohan . .....Appellant(s)
Versus
J. Kasthuri . .....Respondent(s)
T.C.M.P.No.9378 of 1975
Decided On : 26 September 1975
R. Dheenadhayalu, for Petitioner.
D. K. Srinivasagopalan, for Respondent.
City Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit.
Headnote:Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Section 24-Pauper-Half share in the suit properties claimed in the petition filed in City Civil Court-Held, City Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit.
2. The petitioner herein, in view of the fact that so many applications are pending before the X Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras and also in view of the fact that the interests of justice will be well protected if a transfer is made instead of withdrawing the suit from the City Civil Court and presenting it on the Original Side of this Court, wants to transfer the suit under section 24, Civil Procedure Code. This petition is opposed by the respondent herein. Mr. D.K Srinivasagopalan, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that this Court sitting on the Appellate Side has no jurisdiction to transfer the Original Petition to the Original Side of this High Court. Learned counsel also submitted that section 24(1) (b) (i) of Civil Procedure Code will not apply to the facts of this case. Learned counsel further submitted that there are certain procedures for filing pauper petitions before the Original Side of this Court and that by transfer all those formalities will have to be dispensed with. Hence learned counsel suggested that the plaint may be returned by the City Civil Court as provided under Order 7, rule 10(1), Civil Procedure Code and the petitioner can as well present it before this Court.
3. Mr. Deenadayal, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court has ample jurisdiction under section 24 (1) (b) (i) Civil Procedure Code, to transfer the Original Petition to the Original Side of this Court. This position has been amply made clear by the decision in Srirangam Municipality v. R. V. Palaniswami Pillai1. Learned counsel also submits that in the interests of justice and also to maintain thestatus quo as on date, there is no point in invoking the provisions under Order 7, rule 10 (1) Civil Procedure Code but the parties’ interest will be amply served if a transfer is directed under section 24 (1) (b) (i) Civil Procedure Code. Learned counsel next con. tended that the procedure in presenting the pauper appeals is meant for the presentation of pauper suits for the first time, before the High Court. The transfer of a pauper suit can always be ordered since the same is done under section 24, Civil Procedure Code and the procedure mentioned in the Original Side Rules for filing the pauper suits will not come into play for transfers under section 24, Civil Procedure Code.
4. I have been taken through the decision in Srirangam Municipality v. R. V. Palaniswami Pillai1. In that decision a Bench of this Court has categorically held that:
“ According to us, the correct position is that an application under section 24, Civil Procedure Code should be made to this Court as such in the same manner as it might be made to the District Court and