IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

CMPMO No. 629 of 2023 Decided on: 01.12.2023 UCO Bank …Petitioner Versus Rajesh Thakur …Respondent Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Sin gh Chauhan, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? ^{1 No.}

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Dalmia, Advocate.

For the Respondent : None.

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral)

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of Inhdia read with Section 24 CPC is directed against the order dated 09.10.2023, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Shimla, District Shimla in CMA No. 1748 of 2023, titled as Rajesh HThakur vs. UCO Bank, whereby the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff for transferring of the case/return of the plaint to the Court having jurisdiction to decide the case has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner- plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 41,79,875/- before this Court which was registered as Civil Suit No. 51/2010. However, since the pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit was subsequently

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes conferred to the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), this suit was accordingly transferred to the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Shimla vide order dated 14.12.2022H, ostensibly for the reasons that probably it was that Court which has the jurisdiction. f

3. However, it needs to be emphasized that there was no adjudication whatsoever regarding the place of cause of action or the place of jurisrdiction of the Court trying the suit and it was transferred simplicitor. When the petitioner-plaintiff noticed that the Court at Shimla had no jurisdiction to try the suit as the caCuse of action has arisen in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant at Palampur, it filed an application for transferring the suit to the said Court. However, the learned Trial gCourt dismissed the application by according the following reasons:-

6. According to Order VII Rule 10 CPC a Plaint can be returned to a court of competent jurisdiction at any stage of the case if there is a defect in the jurisdiction. Whereas, Section 24(5) empowers the Ld. District Court and Hon'ble High Court to transfer any case due to lack of jurisdiction. According to Section 24(5), a suit or proceeding may be transferred under this Section from a Court which has no jurisdiction to try it. The Hon'ble High Court and Ld. District Court has this power to transfer any suit or proceeding before a subordinate court lacking jurisdiction to a court with competent jurisdiction. If a plaint is returned under Order VII Rule 10 and 10-A of CPC, for presentation in the court in which it should have been instituted, the plaint is to be considered as a fresh plaint and the trial is to be conducted denovo. This can be stated to be a natural consequence oHf the return of plaint. However, the present case cannot be stated to have been wrongly instituted because it was initially instituted in the Hon'ble High Court of HP which was having jurisdiction to try and entertain present suit. Further, the case was received by way of transfer to this court on enhancement of the pecuniary jutrisdiction of this court as has already been mentionedr. Even, the perusal of the case file shows that muchu progress has been made in the present case and the case was fixed for evidence of the defendant when it was received by way of transfer from the Hon'ble High Court of HP. That being so, in case of return of the plaint at this stage, it will tantamount to hardship to the parties who were in litigation since long if they will have to face the trial de novo. Therefore, the present application is dismissed without any order as to costs. The application g stands disposed of. Be tagged after due completion and registration to be claimed as contested CMA.

4. To say the least, the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are not at all sustainable and are rather perverse. The parties were ad idem