CHANDRASHEKHAR Vs. RAJESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S.K. Mehrotra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Kirti Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel. The petitioner is aggrieved with order dated 27.3.2010 passed by the District Judge, Unnao in Misc. Case No. 52 of 2009 to the extent that through the finding given in the order it appears that learned District Judge has validated the proceedings held before the Court of incompetent jurisdiction.

(2.) The defendant vehemently opposed the transfer application and submitted that proceeding of the case is null and void as the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Unnao has had no jurisdiction to try the suit. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot take benefit of proceedings, which are without jurisdiction and further requested to return the plaint to be presented before the Court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with provisions of Order VII, Rule 10 CPC. The District Judge allowed the plaintiffs application under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure and instead of issuing direction to present the same before the Court of competent jurisdiction as provided under Order VII, Rule 10 CPC transferred the case to the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division),Unnao to proceed with the case from the stage it is transferred. In the present case, the evidence has already been produced and the case is at the stage of final arguments.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceeding held before the Court of incompetent jurisdiction at each and every stage of case becomes without jurisdiction, therefore, the suit is liable to be tried de novo from the stage of presentation of plaint by the Court of competent jurisdiction as it has been presented before the said Court.