S.U. Khan, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. No one has appeared on behalf of contesting respondents even though the case has been taken up in the revised list.
2. This is plaintiff's writ petition. Original petitioner filed O. S. No. 137 of 1978 against contesting respondents before Munsif, Ballia. The suit was transferred for disposal to VIIIth Additional Munsif, Ballia. The valuation of the suit in the original plaint was shown to be Rs. 209.60. Afterwards plaintiff filed an application seeking amendment in the plaint. Amendment was also sought in the valuation clause of the plaint and it was prayed that suit must be permitted to be valued at Rs. 10,003.84. The VIIIth Additional Munsif through order dated 15.5.1980 invited objections of the defendant on the amendment application filed by the plaintiff and fixed 18.7.1980 for disposal of amendment application. However, on the very next date, i.e., 16.5.1980, the VIIIth Additional Munsif wrote a letter to the District Judge requesting for transfer of the suit to a Court of competent jurisdiction (at that time, jurisdiction of Munsifs was confined to Rs. 10,000 and suits valued at more than Rs. 10,000 were cognizable by Civil Judges). Copy of the letter is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. On the said letter, learned District Judge passed an order on 22.5.1980 transferring the suit to the court of Civil Judge, Ballia. That order is also contained in Annexure-1. This transfer was not in accordance with law. Amendment application was to be considered by the Munsif. Only after allowing the amendment application, enhancing the valuation of the suit to more than Rs. 10,000, suit could be transferred to the court of Civil Judge or plaint could be returned for filing before Civil Judge and not before that vide AIR 1997 Cal 340; AIR 1989 Ker 28 : AIR 1983 AP 11 : AIR 1982 Ori 25; AJR 1973 Guj 283; AIR 1970 Mad 247; AIR 1997 Bom 252.
3. Civil Judge, Ballia after transfer of the suit to it, by order of District Judge dated 22.5.1980, allowed the amendment application on 6.4.1981. Thereafter, an objection was raised by the defendant before the Civil Judge that the suit was not properly presented to it. Thereupon, the Civil Judge, Ballia, on 28.7.1981 held that:
Thus, in my opinion the suit was not properly presented in the court of Munsif West Ballia.
4. Thereafter, Civil Judge, Ballia held that as the suit had not been properly presented, hence order of transfer under Section 24, C.P.C. could not create jurisdiction and it could not regularise wrong presentation even though the suit had been transferred to the Court of Competent jurisdiction. This view is clearly erroneous in law and against the provision of Section 24 (5), C.P.C. which is quoted below:
A suit or proceeding may be transferred under this section from a Court which has no jurisdiction to try it.
Ultimately, in the said order, Civil Judge observed as follows:
Under these circumstances I am of the opinion that a letter should be written to District Judge for transfer of this suit to the court of Munsif, West Ballia where it was presented for the return of the plaint for proper presentation.
5. Copy of order dated 28.7.1981 is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Against the said order, plaintiff filed Civil Revision No. 79 of 1981. Vth A.D.J., Ballia allowed the revision partly through order dated 17.11.1981, which has been challenged through this writ petition. The revisional court rightly held that first, the Munsif should have allowed the amendment application and thereafter should have returned the plaint under Order VII, Rule 10, C.P.C. for filing before proper Court, i.e., Civil Judge. It was also rightly observed by the revisional court that it was within the powers of the District Judge to transfer such suit. Thereafter, the revisional court held that the procedure as provided under Rule 89 of General Rules (Civil), regarding transfer of the suits should have been followed. Ultimately, revisional court held that:
The only irregularity committed by the learned Civil Judge is that he should have himself returned the plaint to be presented to the Civil Judge and he could have passed the orders simultaneously.
6. Ultimately, the letter of request sent by the Civil Judge to the District Judge was quashed and plaint was ordered to be returned for proper presentation. The net result of the order of revisional court is that plaint was to be returned to the plaintiff by Civil Judge for being filed before the same Court, i.e., Civil Judge.
7. In my opinion, the courts below have acted in extremely technical manner. Plaintiff also unnecessarily wasted 27 years by challenging the order of the revisional court through this writ petition. He could have taken back the plaint and simultaneously filed the same before the same Court, i.e., Civil Judge. By complying with this frivolous but harmless technicality, he would have saved precious 27 years.
8. Now position is that district Ballia has been divided into several other districts and at present there may not be any court of VIIth Additional Munsif. Now jurisdiction of Munsifs (Civil Judge, Junior Division) has also been increased. Most of the Munsifs are competent to try the suits upto the valuation of Rs. 25,000, however Junior Munsifs (Civil Judge, Junior Division) are still authorised to hear only the suits upto Rs. 10,000 valuation.
9. Different High Courts, Privy Council and Supreme Court have often held that procedure is handmaid and not mistress. In this regard just one authority of Supreme Court may be referred which is in Kailash v. Nanhku : AIR 2005 SC 2441 : 2005 (2) AWC 1490 (SC).
10. Under Section 24, C.P.C., District Judge has got power to transfer a suit pending before a Court having no jurisdiction to a Court having jurisdiction. Even when the valuation of the suit was only Rs. 200 and odd, District Judge was fully competent to transfer the same to the Civil Judge as the jurisdiction of Civil Judge is unlimited, no maxima no minima. Accordingly, order of allowing the amendment in the plaint passed by the Civil Judge, Ballia is perfectly legal.
11. Writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the District Judge, Ballia to transfer the suit to a Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Presiding Officer of which has got jurisdiction to hear the suits upto the valuation of Rs. 25,000.
12. The Court, where the suit is transferred, shall issue notice to the defendants before proceeding further with the suit. Thereafter, the suit shall be decided very very expeditiously.
Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.