O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. The short question which arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the institution of a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the CPC’), before the Principal District Judge, and its transfer thereafter, to the Additional District Judge due to an administrative exigency, would be in compliance with the said provision.

3. The facts of the case are as under:

The appellants filed an application under Section 92 read with Section 151 of the CPC, seeking leave to file a suit for Signature Not Verified declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction. The said Digitally signed by SWETA BALODI Date: 2025.03.06 Reason: application was filed before the Principal District Judge, Shimla. Due to an administrative exigency, the same was transferred to the Additional District Judge-II, Shimla (for short, ‘the ADJ’). Thereafter, leave was granted by the ADJ, vide order dated 04.04.2015. This was challenged by the defendants before the High Court in a revision petition, which was disposed of with liberty to file an appropriate application seeking revocation of the leave granted. This was accordingly done. Upon hearing the parties, the said application was rejected by the ADJ vide order dated 16.08.2018, which has not been challenged by the defendants thereafter. An order of interim injunction had also been sought for and granted. At that stage, an application was filed by the defendants invoking Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. While hearing the said application, the issue of jurisdiction was taken up by the ADJ and decided against the appellants, finding that an Additional District Judge has no jurisdiction to entertain and try a suit under Section 92 of the CPC. Accordingly, the case file was directed to be sent to the Court of the District Judge, vide order dated 02.11.2019. The District Judge vide order dated 28.11.2019, sent the case file back to the Court of the ADJ, finding that the appropriate course would have been for the ADJ to send a request/reference to the High Court, rather than sending the case file to the Court of the District Judge. Both these orders dated 02.11.2019 and 28.11.2019, were challenged before the High Court. The High Court, vide the impugned order, found the leave granted by the ADJ to be bad in law, set aside the order dated 28.11.2019 and ordered the suit to be transferred to the docket of the District Judge, for fresh adjudication of the application under Section 92 of the CPC. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants are before us.

4. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the issue qua jurisdiction had attained finality by the dismissal of the application seeking revocation of leave. In any case, Section 6 read with Sections 9 and 17 of the Himachal Pradesh Courts Act, 1976 (for short, ‘the HP Courts Act’) facilitates the Principal District Judge to transfer cases to the Additional District Judge. On facts, the present suit was instituted before the Principal District Judge. On the question of law also, it has been held by the full Bench of the Punjab High Court in “Gagangir Vs. Rasal Singh & Anr.” [Vol.XVIII-(2)], reported in Indian Law Reports, Page Nos.81-86, followed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in “Ram Kishore Sharma & Ors. Vs. Gopi Nath & Ors.”, reported in 1979 SCC Online Allahabad 244, while dealing with very same provision, namely Section 92 of the CPC, and pari materia provisions of the HP Courts Act, that the power to transfer a suit under Section 92 of the CPC, is available to the Principal District Judge.

5. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the question of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage. Admittedly, there is no notification issued by the State Government empowering the Additional District Judge under Section 92 of the CPC and therefore, no interference in the impugned order, is required.

6. Upon hearing the learned Senior counsel appe