PAPPAMMAL Vs. N CHINNA GOUNDER DIED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE main point taken is that, the order of the ap pellate authority was passed without jurisdiction, in that, it was taken up by III Addl. Sub-Judge, Tiruchirapalli, on being transferred by Principal Subordinate Judge on 18.7.1979, which could not have been done by the Principal Subordinate Judge, because rule 17 of the rules framed under Act 18 of 1960 empowers onlythe District Court to transfer appeals from one appellate authority to another appellate authority. In T.R.Babu v. M.S.Shanmugham Chettiar, (1965) 2 M.L.J. 15, it has been held that there is a clear distinction between orders of transfer and administrative orders allocating business to the courts of particular Judges under section 4-A of Tamil Nadu Act III of 1873. Once a Judge has taken cognizance of a suit, any order removing the suit from his file is an order of transfer, and hence section 4-A would not apply. In the instant matter, appeal was presented on 5.3.1977. THEreafter, it was called on innumerable occasions, and only after 2 years and 3 months, the Principal Subordinate Judge had transferred it to III Addl. Subordinate Judge. On most of the adjourned dates, it was stated that.both sides were not ready, meaning thereby the matter was ready for hearing and disposal.

(2.) RULE 17 authorises only District Court to transfer an appeal from an appellate authority to another appellate authority.

(3.) HENCE, the order. of the appellate authority is set aside and the matter is now remitted to the Principal Subordinate Judge, who functions as appellate authority under the Act is dispose of the appeal. This order would not preclude the District Judge to exercise his powers under rule 17, if it is considered just and convenient. HENCE the revision petition is allowed. No costs.