JUDGMENT

1. This is an application under Section 24, Civil P.C., for transfer of an appeal against the decision of a Subordinate Judge from the file of the learned District Judge of Fyzabad to the file of some other District Judge, on the ground that the District Judge of Fyza-bad had already expressed his opinion on the point at issue in the appeal. The facts are that when the appeal came originally for hearing before the learned District Judge, he admitted certain additional documentary evidence under Order 41, Rule 27, Civil P.C., and decided the appeal on the basis of the entire evidence including the additional evidence admitted by him. There was an appeal against his decision to this Court. The result of the appeal was that the decree of the District Judge was set aside and the case was remanded to him with directions to rehear the appeal after strictly complying with the provisions of Order 41, Rule 27, Civil P.C.

2. When the case was taken up for hearing by the learned District Judge after the remand, the opposite party did not insist upon the additional evidence being admitted and withdrew the same from consideration. The applicant then asked the learned District Judge not to hear the appeal on the ground that when he previously decided the appeal, he had expressed his opinion on the evidence already on the record. In the course of his order passed on this application, the learned District Judge remarked as follows:

There is no doubt that my judgment contains findings of fact based on evidence which is independent of the additional evidence now'excluded and the respondent can very well feel that he is at a disadvantage....

3. He accordingly allowed the applicant time to move this Court for transfer of the appeal to some other District Judge. We think under the circumstances, the applicant may well have a reasonable apprehension that it will not be possible for the learned District Judge to approch the decision of the case with an open mind. We also feel that it would be embarrassing for him to arrive at a finding contrary to the one already arrived at by him. We are therefore of opinion that it is a proper case in which we should exercise our general powers of transfer. The learned Counsel for the opposite party has however raised the objection that under Section 24, Civil P.C., we have no authority to transfer the appeal to any other District Judge. It is pointed out that Section 24(1)(b)(ii) authorizes a High Court to transfer an appeal for disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same." The argument is that the words "competent to try or dispose of the same" mean that the Court to which the appeal is transferred should possess not only pecuniary, but also territorial jurisdiction to dispose of it. There can be no doubt that the word "competent" signifies that the Court to which the appeal is transferred should have power to hear it. Whether this power is to be determined merely upon the nature or subject-matter of the case and upon its pecuniary value or also upon the territorial limits of the jurisdiction exercised by the Court to which the transfer is made, is not altogether free from difficulty. In Jannat Husain v. Gulam Kutubuddin Ahmad, AIR 1920 Pat 29 it was held that a District Judge has no power to transfer a case under Section 24(2) to a Court whose local jurisdiction does not include the area in which the suit arose. In other words, the learned Judges were of opinion that the word "competent" as used in Section 24(2) includes competence from the point of view of territorial jurisdiction.

4. This case was followed by a Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Ram Das v. Habibullah, (1931) 136 IC 384. The learned Judges who decided the case observed that as the words of the statute are in no way limited, the Court to which the case is transferred must possess both pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to entertain it. With all respect to the learned Judges who decided these