Transferee Court has jurisdiction to entertain the application.

ORDER :- In this Civil Revision Petition at the instance of the first defendant in O. S. No. 27 of 1983, District Munsiff's Court, Tirunelveli, the question that arises for consideration is, whether the Court below was right in the view it took that it had no jurisdiction to entertain an application for review filed before it by the petitioner. Originally, the first respondent instituted O. S. No. 217 oaf 1978 before the Sub Court, Tuticorin, against the petitioner and the second respondent herein for the recovery of amounts due under a mortgage dated 29-5-1972. Subsequently, owing to the enlargement of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Munsiff's Court, the suit instituted by the first respondent herein fefore the Sub Court, Tuticorin, stood transferred to the file of the District Munsiff's Court, Tuticorin. Before that Court, the first respondent herein prayed in I. A. No. 1293 of 1982 for an amendment of the plaint. Some objections were raised by the petitioner and after overruling those objections, on 15-10-1982, the learned District Munsiff allowed the application for an amendment of the plaint. On 20-12-1982, the suit which was pending before the District Munsiff's Court, Tuticorin, was transferred to the file of the District Munsiff, Tirunelveli. Before that Court, the petitioner filed an application for a review of the order passed in I. A. No. 1293 of 1982 by the District Munsiff, Tuticorin, and also prayed for the condonation of the delay in filing the Review application. While dealing with that application, the learned District Munsif, Tirunelveli, took the view that as the order, a review of which was prayed for, was passed by the learned District Munsiff, Tuticorin, only that Court can exercise powers of review and that as the transferee Court, he had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. On this conclusion, the application was dismissed. Challenging the correctness of this order, the petitioner has preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that having regard to the repeal of O.47, R.2, Civil P. C., by Act 66 of 1956, it was not even necessary that the same Judge should hear the review application and that in the present case, the suit itself had been transferred from the District Munsiff's Court at Tuticorin to that at Tirunelveli and, therefore, under Sec. 150, Civil P. C., the transferee Court, namely, the District Munsiff's Court at Tirunelveli had all the powers and was also obliged to perform all the duties of the District Munsiff's Court at Tuticorin, from which the suit was transferred inclusive of reviewing its earlier orders. Strong reliance in this connection was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner upon the decisions to Narasimha Raju v. Brundavanasahu (AIR 1943 Mad 617); Mehar Singh v. Kasturi Ram (AIR 1962 . Punj 394); Achuthan v. Karthiyayani Amma (AIR 1962 Ker 105), Kahan Chand v. Faqir Chand (AIR 1968 Punj and Har 374) and Howrah Insurance Co. v. S.M. Das Gupta (AIR 1975 SC 2051). On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent would contend that under the provisions of Order 47, Rule 1, Civil P. C., any person considering himself aggrieved by an order may apply for a review of that order to the Count which passed the decree or made the order and in view of this specific provision, Section 150, Civil P. C., enabling the transferee Court to exercise jurisdiction in all matters which the transferee Court should have exercised jurisdiction, would not apply. Reliance in this connection was placed upon use of the expression, "Save as otherwise provided" occurring in S.150, Civil The learned counsel further submitted that there was considerable delay, which was also unexplained, in the filing of the application for review and the petitioner would, therefore, be not entitled to seek a review of the order passed in I. A. No. 1293 of 1982

3. Before embarking upon a consideration of these rival submissions,