KRISHAN CHAND Vs. TEJ RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A preliminary objection has been raised in this appeal that the same is not competent as the order passed by the District Judge is not one under Order 7 R. 10 of .the Code of Civil Procedure returning the plaint to the plaintiff for presenting it before the proper forum. The learned District Judge, after he found the defendant respondent an agriculturist within the meaning of Sec. 2 of the Agriculturists Relief Act, transferred the case to the court of Sub Judge, Kathua for disposal. The said order is not appealable.

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) MR D. N. Mahajan appearing for the appellant has tried to meet this argument of the respondent by enunciating the view that the order of the District Judge, transferring the suit to the court of Sub Judge Kathua for disposal is to be construed as one under Order 7 Rule 10 C.P.C. The District Judge after he found the defendant an agriculturist and after he was of the view that the case could not be tried by him and no other procedure to follow but the one indicated under Order 7 R. 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This, in fact, the District Judge purported to do while passing the impugned order. Therefore the order transferring the case to the Sub Judge should nevertheless be construed to mean the return of the plaint to the plaintiff for presenting it before the proper court and passed under Order 7 R. 10 C.P.C. In support of his argument he has relied upon A.I.R. 1972 J&K 1, A.I.R. 1968 Madras 222 and A.I.R. 1967 A.P. 152.