ORDER
Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.
1. This matter coming up for orders is disposed of by the following order by consent of Counsel for the parties and after hearing the Counsel for the parties.
2. Briefly stated facts are as follows:- One K. Channabasappa was the plaintiff in O.S.No. 234 of 1987 on the file of the Civil Judge, Shimoga, seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendant (revision petitioner in this Court) from interfering with his peaceful possession of the suit schedule property. Prior to the filing of that suit, Channaveerappa, the revision petitioner, had filed O.S.No. 187 of 1987 on the file of the Munsiff, Shikaripur, seeking identical relief against Channabasappa the plaintiff in O.S.No. 234 of 1987 on the file of the Civil Judge. The revision petitioner in his suit has prayed for injunction in respect of a portion of the suit schedule property in the other suit. It was thereafter that Channabasappa filed a petition under Section 24 of the C.P.C. seeking transfer of the suit pending in the Munsiff's Court to be tried by the Civil Judge as it would be more appropriate and convenient having regard to the fact that the injunction granted by the Civil Court would cover both the cases as the schedule property in O.S.No. 187 of 1987 was only a portion of the suit schedule property in O.S.No. 234 of 1987. After notice and after hearing the parties, the learned District Judge has directed the transfer as prayed for. Therefore, the present revision interalia on the ground that the suit before the Munsiff, Shikaripur, was filed earlier than the suit in the Court of the Civil Judge and in order to harass the revision petitioner, the respondent Channabasappa has intentionally over-valued the suit schedule property in the suit filed by him in O.S. No. 234 of 1987 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Shimoga, knowing full well that the revision petitioner would be put to great hardship in defending that suit or prosecuting his own suit at Tumkur.
3. Whether the suit is over-valued or not is a question which the Civil Judge has to decide in the suit pending before him and not this Court in revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C. at this stage. Therefore, that ground urged in support of the prayer in this revision must be rejected.
4. Even the second ground that it would amount to harassment would not, in my opinion, be a ground which this Court should entertain. If there is harassment and the plaintiff before the Civil Judge loses his case, the Court is free and duty bound to adequately compensate the successful defendant for the harassment caused by awarding exemplary costs if it is found to be necessary.
5. Therefore, what remains to be considered is whether a District Judge or the High Court while exercising powers under Section 24 of the C.P.C. should take note of the date on which the two suits were filed and thereby form an opinion as to the need for transfer. The language of Section 24 C.P.C. does not give room for such an approach. The inhibition to exercise that power is to be found in the Section itself and not from other sources.
6. I have already taken the view in C.R.P. No. 743. of 1983, disposed of on 17-11-1988, that the power to exercise is two-fold. In this case, an order has been passed on the petition filed by the plaintiff in the Court of the Civil Judge; respondent has been heard. Therefore, there is no procedural defect in the order passed. The only inhibition to exercise power under Section 24 C.P.C. is the Court to which the suit is transferred must be competent to try it. In the scheme of Karnataka Civil Courts Act, the Court of the Munsiff is the Court of lowest grade and that of the Civil Judge is of superior grade and also in certain matters, the latter Court exercises appellate jurisdiction over the Judgments and orders of the Munsiff, Section 15 of the C.P.C. has been held to be a Rule of convenience by a catena of decisions to which I have referred in C.R.P.No. 743 of 1988 (supra). Therefore, a superior Court is presumed to have jurisdiction to try a suit even though the Karnataka Civil Courts Act may provide different jurisdiction based on pecuniary value of the claim on a lower grade Court. If the Munsiff cannot try the suit at Shikaripur, that is, the suit filed by Channabasappa the respondent herein, then the only course left open to the District Judge, for convenience of disposal of both the suits, is to transfer the suit filed by the petitioner herein to be tried by the Civil Judge to avoid duplication of proceedings. So long as the order, transferring is to serve the purpose of meeting the ends of justice, the fact that the suit was filed earlier by the petitioner in the Court of the Munsiff at Shikaripur is not a restraint which the District Judge was bound to countenance.
7. In that view of the matter, there is no infirmity in the order which calls for interference in this Court under Section 115 of the C.P.C. Subject to the observations made in the course of this order, this petition is rejected as it is devoid of merit.