JUDGMENT :

YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

Heard Sri Ayub Khan, holding brief of Sri Parvez Iqbal Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The present petition has been filed seeking to assail the order dated 01.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-1, Ballia in Civil Revision No. Nil of 2025 (Shiv Shankar vs. Mahavir & Others), as well as the order dated 11.09.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ballia, in S.C.C. Case No. 139 of 2021 (Mahavir and others vs. Gulab Chand and others).

3. The controversy arises in the backdrop of Application No. 43 Ga-2 moved by the petitioner, who is defendant no. 3 in the suit. By means of the said application, it was contended that the suit, being one for arrears of rent and eviction, was cognizable by a Court of Small Causes and, therefore, having been instituted as a regular civil suit, the plaint was liable to be returned under Order VII Rule 10 C.P.C. for presentation before the competent court.

4. The trial court, however, took note of the factual position that although the suit was initially instituted as a regular original suit, the same had subsequently been transferred, in pursuance of orders passed by the learned District Judge, to the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ballia, which was vested with the powers to try Small Causes cases. In view thereof, the court held that the defect, if any, stood cured and directed that the case be registered and proceeded with as a S.C.C. suit, consequently disposing of Application No. 43 Ga-2.

5. The revision preferred against the said order has been dismissed by the Revisional Court, affirming the reasoning of the trial court.

6. The questions which arise for consideration are whether, in a case where a suit is instituted before a court lacking jurisdiction, return of plaint under Order VII Rule 10 C.P.C. is the only permissible course; whether the District Judge is empowered under Section 24(5) C.P.C. to transfer such a suit to a competent court and if such transfer cures the defect of jurisdiction; whether absence of prior notice before passing an order of transfer vitiates the proceedings; and whether the impugned orders suffer from any jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

7. The principal submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the provisions of Order VII Rule 10 C.P.C. are mandatory in nature and once it is found that the court in which the suit was instituted lacked jurisdiction, the plaint must necessarily be returned for presentation before the proper court, and that the subsequent transfer of proceedings cannot cure such defect. It is also contended that order of transfer passed under Section 24 stands vitiated on account of absence of prior notice.

8. In order to appreciate the contention, it is necessary to examine the scope and object of Order VII Rule 10 C.P.C. The said provision embodies the principle that a plaint must be presented before a court of competent jurisdiction and where the court in which it is filed lacks territorial, pecuniary or subject-matter jurisdiction, it is obligated to return the plaint for presentation before the proper forum. The provision is procedural in nature and is intended to ensure that adjudication takes place before a court legally empowered to entertain the lis.

9. However, the provision cannot be construed in isolation. The Code of Civil Procedure provides a comprehensive procedural framework, within which the power of transfer under Section