ORDER
1. This revision petition arises out of the order dated 7-1-1998 passed by the Principal City Civil Judge, Bangalore, in Miscellaneous Petition No. 1109 of 1997 on the petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for transfer of the suit bearing O.S. No. 4438 of 1996 filed by the revision petitioner-respondent pending in the Court of the Additional City Civil Judge (CCH. 14), Bangalore, to the Court of the Additional City Civil Judge (CCH. 16), Bangalore, where the earlier suit filed by respondent-petitioner had been pending.
2. The learned Principal City Civil Judge, Bangalore after considering the matter held that the Court of the Principal City Civil Judge being the Principal Court of the original civil jurisdiction comes within the definition of the District Court and by virtue of Section 24(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the said Court has got power to order transfer of case from one Court to the other.
3. The learned Principal City Civil Judge observed that since the subject-matter of both the suits is one and the same and since the relief claimed are also one and the same and it is necessary that both the suits shall be heard by one Court to avoid conflicting decisions being given if they were to be pending in different Courts. It further observed that there is likelihood of conflicting orders being given by the Presiding Officers of the different Courts where the said suits have been pending. It is necessary to withdraw and transfer of the case i.e., O.S. No. 4438 of 1996 from the file of the Additional City Civil Judge (CCH. 14), Bangalore to the Court of the Additional City Civil Judge (CCH. 16), Bangalore, where the suit bearing O.S. No. 3221 of 1996 is pending.
4. Being aggrieved of the said order, the present revision petitioner-respondent has come up in revision before this Court.
5. I have heard Sri P. Subba Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri C. Lakshminarayana Rao, learned Counsel for the respondent-petitioner.
6. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the two Courts of Additional City Civil Judge were not subordinate to the Principal City Civil Judge, Bangalore, or to the Court of the Principal City Civil Judge, Bangalore and so it was not open to the Court below to pass the order of transfer in question. Under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, there is a provision for General Power of transfer and withdrawal. The contention that the Courts of Additional City Civil Judge where two suits are pending cannot be deemed to be subordinate to it.
7. This contention has been hotly contested by the Counsel appearing for the respondent.
8. The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is subject to certain conditions, that the order in question amounts to a case decided and no appeal lies therefrom to this Court. The further condition is that the Court subordinate must be shown to have committed jurisdictional error and if jurisdictional error is shown, it has to be further shown that the order impugned is allowed to remain in existence and how it would likely to cause injustice or irreparable loss to the party aggrieved. The jurisdiction of the Court had been challenged. Section 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under:
“3. Subordination of Courts.–
For the purposes of this Code, the District Court is subordinate to the High Court, and every Civil Court of a grade inferior to that of a District Court and every Court of Small Causes is subordinate to the High Court and District Court”.
9. The expression District Court has also been denned in Section 2(4) of the Code, along with the definition of “district”. Sub-section (4) of Section 2 of the Code reads as under:
“District” means the local limits of the jurisdiction of a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction (hereinafter called a “District Court”), and includes the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of a High Court”.
10. Whenever the expression “District Court” has been used in the Code of Civil Procedure, it means and refers to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. Hierarchy of the Courts for administration of justice had been created by the Constitution of the Courts under the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, as well as by Bangalore City Civil Court Act with respect to the City of Bangalore. Karnataka State legislature enacted Bangalore City Civil Court Act, 1979. Section 3 of the Bangalore City Civil Court Act, 1979 provides for the establishment of a City Civil Court for the City of Bangalore. The City Civil Court under sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Bangalore City Civil Court Act, 1979, means the Court established under sub-section (1) of Section 3. Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act, provides that there shall be a City Civil Court for the City of Bangalore. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 provides that the City Civil Court shall consist of a Principal City Civil Judge and such number of other City Civil Judges as the State Government may, in consultation with the High Court determine. Sub-section (3) of Section 3 provides that “Notwithstanding anything contained in any law, the City Civil Court — (a) shall be deemed to be the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in the City of Bangalore”, it means by this deeming clause the state of affairs as enacted has to be deemed. Even for a moment it may be said that the Principal City Civil Court may ordinarily be the City Civil Court but by legal fiction the City Civil Court has to be deemed to be the Principal City Civil Court of original jurisdiction for the City of Bangalore and there it has been provided that there shall be
a Principal City Civil Judge and such number of other City Civil Judges as State Government in consultation with High Court may determine. With respect to the Bangalore District Courts, the Courts of the Civil Judges and the Munsiffs Court established under the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964 (Karnataka Act 21 of 1964), exercising jurisdiction only within the local limits of the City of Bangalore immediately before the appointed date shall, on and from the said date, cease to function and are hereby abolished. Section 4 provides that the City Civil Court shall be deemed to be a Court subordinate to and subject to the control and superintendence of the High Court. Section 5 provides that each of the Judges may exercise all or any of the powers conferred on the City Civil Court by this Act or any other law for the time being in force. Section 5(2) is more important and it provides that the Principal City Civil Judge may, subj t to the general or special orders of the High Court from time to time make such arrangement as he thinks fit for the distribution of the but it ess of the City Civil Court among the Judges thereof. This power is no doubt subject to the general or special order of the High Court. Therefore the power of distribution of work among the Judges of the City Civil Court vests in the Principal City Civil Judge. The expression “distribution” includes in its allocation of work to different City Civil Judges and this power is vested in the Principal City Civil Judge. The City Civil Court has been deemed to be the Court of original jurisdiction, unless any direction to the contrary is shown, it lies within the power of Principal City Civil Judge to allocate work or to distribute work of the various Judges of the City Civil Court and this power may he said to include transferring of a case from the Court of one Additional City Civil Judge to the Court of another Additional City Civil Judge. Section 24(3)(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, also introduces a deeming clause that Courts of Additional and Assistant Judges shall be deemed to be subordinate to the District Court. If Additional District Judges can be deemed to be subordinate to the Principal District Judge for the purpose of distribution of work and transfer of cases under Section 24 of the Code, in my opinion the same will be the position of other Judges of the City Civil Court. The Principal City Civil Judge may make such arrangement as he thinks fit for the transfer and distribution of the work of the City Civil Court among other Judges. In this view of the matter, in my opinion it cannot be said that the Principal City Civil Judge had committed any jurisdictional error or acted in excess of jurisdiction when it passed the impugned order. The Principal City Civil Judge, Bangalore, has got full power to transfer the case under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 5(2) of the Bangalore City Civil Court Act, 1979. The order impugned in this revision petition does not suffer any error or jurisdictional error.
11. The Court below had considered the matter and applied his mind to the necessity of directing O.S. No. 4438 of 1996 pending on the file of the Additional City Civil Judge, CCH. 14 has to be withdrawn and transferred to the Court of Additional City Civil Judge, CCH. 16, where the suit O.S. No. 3221 of 1996 is pending.
12. It has not been shown how the impugned order is likely to cause injustice or irreparable loss to the revision petitioner. In this view of the matter, nothing has been shown amounting to cause injustice or irreparable loss. This Court is bound to dismiss the revision petition. As such the revision petition is dismissed. Let the suit be decided expeditiously.