Bapna, J —This is an application in revision against the order of the Additional Munsiff, Jaipur City West, dated first November, 1954, rejecting the objection as to jurisdiction. 2. The respondents Bhonrilal and Shanker Lal filed a suit in the Court of Munsif, Jaipur City East, against the petitioner Chouthmal for recovery of Rs. 550/-. It was transferred to the Court of Additional Munsif Jaipur City, Mr. Dwarka Das Gupta, by order of the District Judge, dated 15th September, 1954. The High Court by an order of the same date, which was received in the Court of the District Judge on the 7th September, 1954, appointed Mr. D.D. Gupta as Additional Munsif jaipur City West, instead of Additional Munsif, Jaipur City. On 11th October, 1954, an application was moved that the court was not competent to try the suit. The learned Additional Munsif by his order of 1st November, 1954, held that the case had been transferred by the District Judge under sec. 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the competency referred to in sec. 24 related to pecuniary jurisdiction and not to territorial jurisdiction. The petitioner has come in revision, and it is contended on his behalf, on the authority of Ramdas vs. Habib Ullah(l) and Jannat Hussin vs. Gulam Kutubuddin Ahmad(2)that the court to which a case was to be transferred should be competent both as regards pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction. With great respect I am unable to follow the view taken in the above cases In most cases the territorial jurisdiction to try a suit is vested in only one court, and it would be impossible to transfer a case to any other court, if the view propounded in the aforesaid two cases were to be accepted. The competency referred to in sec.54 must be taken to be only with respect to the pecuniary jurisdiction, and I find support for this view in Kishorelal vs. Balkishan(3), and Parshotamdas Chunilal Shah vs. Bhagubhai Nathubhai(4). The same view has been taken in Geyer vs. Geyer(5). The contention raised above has no force. 3. The next ground of objection is that when Mr. D.D. Gupta was appointed as Additional Munsif for Jaipur City West only, he ceased to have jurisdiction over this case. The contention is not without force. Mr.D.D. Gupta was appointed as Additional Munsif. Jaipur City, on 16-7-53. The contention raised above has no force. 3. The next ground of objection is that when Mr. D.D. Gupta was appointed as Additional Munsif for Jaipur City West only, he ceased to have jurisdiction over this case. The contention is not without force. Mr.D.D. Gupta was appointed as Additional Munsif. Jaipur City, on 16-7-53. He was then Additional Munsif both for East and West and the allotment of cases from either court of Munsif, Jaipur City East, and Munsif, Jaipur City West, could be done for the court presided by Mr. D.D.Gupta. When an Additional Munsif is appointed for any area it is not a separate court. The court is one, although there are two officers to whom the work is allotted for administrative reasons. But when Mr. D. D. Gupta was appointed as Additional Munsif for Jaipur City West only,all those cases which pertained to the Court of Munsif, Jaipur City East. did not remain triable by him, and they should have been made over to the Munsif, Jaipur City East. It was, however, competent for the District Judge to order for the transfer of all or any of such cases which pertained to the Court of Munsif, Jaipur City East, to the Court of Munsif, Jaipur City West, and further to allot the same to the Court of Mr. D.D. Gupta, who was the Additional Munsif for Jaipur City West. As no such order has been passed, and the case is a preliminary stage, it is directed that the case is triable by the Court of Munsif, Jaipur City East, and is transferred accordingly from the Court of Additional Munsif, Jaipur City West.