SABJOO PROSAD C. J. : This application is directed against an order of Mr. B. C. Barua, District Judge, Lower Assam Districts, dated 8-1-54, withdrawing Mortgage Suit No. 56 of 1952, pending before the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Gauhati, to his own file and then transferring it to the file of the Subordinate Judge at Nowgong. The District Judge apparently purported to act under S. 24, Civil P. C., in direct­ing the transfer. (2) The mortgage suit in question was instituted by the plaintiff opposite party against the peti­tioners on 21-7-52 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Gauhati. The plaintiffs contend that the ™it was not properly instituted before the Subor­dinate Judge at Gauhati who had no jurisdiction to entertain the same, inasmuch as the mortgaged pro­perties were admittedly within the territory of Nowgong; and, therefore, the suit under S. 16, Civil P. C., could be filed not in the Court of the Subor­dinate Judge at Gauhati, but in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Nowgong. It is contended also by the petitioner that inasmuch as the suit t had not been properly instituted, the learned Dis­trict Judge had no jurisdiction to transfer the same, even if he purported to act under S. 24, civil P. C. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners upon the well known decision 1955 Assam, 28 & 29 of the Judicial Committee of the' Privy Council in - 'Ledgard v. Bull' 13 Ind App 134 (PC) (A), where it was held that under S. 25, Civil P. C., as it then was, the superior Court could not make an order of transfer of a case unless the Court from which the transfer is sought to be made had jurisdiction to try the suit. It is, therefore, to be seen whether the Court in which the suit was instituted had jurisdiction to try the same. If it had no jurisdiction, then the learned counsel would be justified in his contention that the suit could not be transferred by the learned District Judge and thereby the institution thereof could not be regularised. (3) The plaint in the suit was filed before the Subordinate Judge at Gauhati. The Subordinate Judge who was the Presiding Officer of the Court, was Mr. D. N. Hazarika. It is not disputed that the Government notification appointing Mr. (3) The plaint in the suit was filed before the Subordinate Judge at Gauhati. The Subordinate Judge who was the Presiding Officer of the Court, was Mr. D. N. Hazarika. It is not disputed that the Government notification appointing Mr. Haza­rika showed that he was appointed Subordinate Judge of Lower Assam Districts, and that he was the officer competent to preside over the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Nowgong. Mr. Ghose contends that although this officer may have been competent to preside over the Subordinate Judge's Court at Nowgong, yet the plaint could not be filed before him when presiding over the Subordinate Judge's Court at Gauhati. In my opinion, this con­tention cannot prevail. The officer had territorial, jurisdiction over the entire District and the mere fact that he presided from time to time over both the Courts at Gauhati and Nowgong, did not in any way limit his jurisdiction over the entire terri­tory, in accordance with the location of his sitting. Therefore, when the plaint was filed before him and entertained by him, it was filed before tile proper Court, the learned Subordinate Judge hav­ing jurisdiction over the area in which the pro­perties in question were situate. (4) Mr. Ghose has, however, drawn our atten­tion to an old notification, dated 13-5-85, under which the Deputy Commissioners of various admi­nistrative districts in this State were vested ex-officio with powers of a Subordinate Judge to enter­tain plaints. This power was eventually taken away from them by virtue of a notification, dated 24-1-53, and thus the Deputy Commissioners of the various administrative districts ceased to be ex-officio Sub­ordinate Judges for the purpose of entertaining plaints and suits. Mr. Ghose contends that at the time the suit was instituted, there was, therefore, an ex-officio Deputy Commissioner exercising jurisdic­tion at Nowgong who would have been competent to entertain the plaint. He further argues that there was, therefore, a clear difference between the Sub­ordinate Judge's Court at Nowgong and the Sub­ordinate Judge's Court at Gauhati, and that being so, this plaint could not in any case be present­ed before the Subordinate Judge when sitting at Gauhati. Even assuming that there were two officers exer­cising jurisdiction to entertain the plaint at the time when the suit was filed, the plaint could not be deemed to have been illegally presented before Mr. Even assuming that there were two officers exer­cising jurisdiction to entertain the plaint at the time when the suit was filed, the plaint could not be deemed to have been illegally presented before Mr. D. N. Hazarika who was the Subordinate Judge of the Lower Assam Districts exercising juris­diction over the whole area. As I have pointed out whatever the position may have been, so far as the Deputy Commissioners ex-officio Subordinate Judges were concerned, in regard to the limitation of their territorial jurisdiction, so far as Mr. Hazarika was concerned, he was a Subordinate Judge exercising jurisdiction over the entire district. Under S. 13, Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, it was open to the State Government, by notification in the official Gazette, to fix and alter the local limits of the jurisdiction of any Civil Court under the Act. Here, they had not limited the jurisdiction of Mr. Hazarika by saying that he was competent to entertain suits only within a particular area. On the contrary, under the noti­fication appointing him a Subordinate Judge, his area or territorial jurisdiction extended over the whole district, and the limits of his jurisdiction were not confined only to Gauhati or Nowgong as it was in the case of the Deputy Commissioner Subordinate Judges. That being so, it is impos­sible to entertain the plea advanced on behalf of the petitioners that he had no jurisdiction to enter­tain the plaint here, because the mortgage pro­perties were situate within the local limits of the district of Nowgong. It is to be remembered that he was the Presiding Officer in respect of both the Courts and, therefore, competent to entertain the plaint even when he was sitting in the Court at Gauhati. The place where he holds his Court is hardly material, if the notification shows, as it does show in this case, that he had jurisdiction over the entire district, including Nowgong. (5) It is also urged that there is a Subordinate Judge now presiding over the Court at Nowgong and, therefore, this should be treated as a separate Court from the Subordinate Judge's Court at Gau­hati. That is true, but even the notification, dated 19-1-53, appointing Mr. Hye an Additional Subordinate Judge and Assistant Sessions Judge, Lower Assam Districts, with headquarters at Now­gong, shows that he was appointed a Subordinate and Assistant Sessions Judge of the District with headquarters at Nowgong. That is true, but even the notification, dated 19-1-53, appointing Mr. Hye an Additional Subordinate Judge and Assistant Sessions Judge, Lower Assam Districts, with headquarters at Now­gong, shows that he was appointed a Subordinate and Assistant Sessions Judge of the District with headquarters at Nowgong. The area of his terri­torial jurisdiction was also not limited; though his headquarter was indicated to be at Nowgong, he was a Subordinate Judge of the Lower Assam Dis­tricts. It may be that the District Judge may give directions that the learned Subordinate Judge, having his headquarters at Nowgong, may deal with cases arising in that locality, but that would be for administrative purposes and for the sake of con­venience only. It would not in any way limit the jurisdiction of the officer, which is otherwise wide enough to cover the entire district. (6) For these reasons, I hold that there is no substance in the contention that the suit has not been properly instituted. That being my finding, the action of the learned District Judge under S. 24, Civil P. C. in withdrawing the case to his own file and then transferring it to the Subordinate Judge at Nowgong is also justified. The applica­tion is, therefore, without any substance and must be dismissed with costs, hearing fee Rs. 50/-. V.S.B. Application dismissed.