1. Initially the suit was presented before this court seeking the above reliefs.

2. The Registry had returned the plaint for want of jurisdiction. The plaint was represented stating that some of the defendants are residing outside the jurisdiction of this court and schedule A of the suit property is also situated at outside the jurisdiction of this court. However, a part of cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of this court. Therefore, an application in 1864 of 2007 was filed seeking leave of the court to sue the defendants in respect of A schedule property and the leave was granted by an order dated 16.2.2007. Thereafter, the suit was numbered in CS 689 of 2007. At that time of registration of the suit, the suit was valued at Rs.18,41,000/- and the court fees under the High Court Fees Rules 1956 was paid.

3. When the pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil court was enhanced in the year 2010, the suit was transferred to the City Civil Court and renumbered as O.S.1237 of 2011. The parties also appeared before the court. The plaintiffs counsel gave a letter to the Registry dated 5.11.2013 stating that a leave was granted by this court and the suit was admitted by this court and therefore, the same cannot be transferred to the city civil court. It was submitted that when clause 12 of Letters Patent applied and once leave is granted this court alone has jurisdiction as held by the division bench of this court reported in 1997 (2) CTC 1(Central Bank of India vs. Mr. Joseph and 20 others). It was also submitted that the City Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit for a property which is situated outside its jurisdiction and the defendants are also residing outside its jurisdiction. Acting on that letter the Registry called for the case from the city civil court and thereby now it is re-transferred to this court.

4. However, the defendants gave a letter through their counsel dated 9.12.2013 stating that the suit is withdrawn from the city civil court without any notice to the defendants, who entered appearance and objected to the valuation of the suit; while so, the re-transfer is not proper and therefore, the suit has to be sent back to the city civil court because the valuation is below Rs.25,00,000/-.

5. Heard Mr. Hari shankar, learned counsel for the plaintiff. Learned counsel would submit that the suit was instituted before this court after obtaining leave under clause 12 of Letters Patent on the ground that “A' schedule of the suit property is situated outside the jurisdiction of this court and some of the defendants are also residing outside the jurisdiction of this court; after obtaining the leave, the suit was numbered. The learned counsel submitted that it was not on the question of valuation of the suit, it was instituted before this court, but only on the question that some of the properties and the defendants were outside the jurisdiction of this court. The learned counsel would further submit that the city civil court cannot have jurisdiction for the properties situated outside the jurisdiction and also cannot have jurisdiction when some of the defendants are residing outside jurisdiction.

6. The learned counsel relied on a decision reported in 1997 (2) CTC 1(Central Bank of India vs. Mr. Joseph and 20 others). He also relied on a decision reported in 2010 4 CTC 593 (T.T. Ravichandran vs. The Secretary to Government, law Department) and unreported judgment dated 21.8.2012 in WP No.28144 and 28145 of 2010.

7. On the other hand, Mr. J. Pachiyappan, learned counsel for defendants 2 and 3 would submit that the valuation of the suit was not proper and on appearance, the defendants have raised the question of valuation of the suit. The learned counsel submitted that when the pecuniary jurisdiction of the city civil court was enhanced, all the suits pending before this court were transferred to city civil court and such transfer is within the limit of this court. Therefore, the same cannot be ca