Judgment :- 1. It is the common case that the suit is one coming under S.92, Civil Procedure Code and ought to have been instituted in the principal civil court of original jurisdiction, namely, the District Court, Alleppey. But it was in fact instituted in the Sub Court, Alleppey, a court lacking in inherent jurisdiction. The withdrawal now ordered by the District Court under S.24 of the Code cannot cure the initial defect of institution in a court incompetent to entertain the suit, and, any proceeding hereafter, albiet by the District Court, would bo void (see the Privy Council decision in ILR. 9 All. p. 191 at p. 202]; especially so in the face of the express bar in sub-section (2) of S.92 of the Code. Granting for the purposes of argument that this circumstance does not affect the jurisdiction of the District Court to make a withdrawal under S.24 of the Code, and that as laid down in AIR. 1934 All. 569 and AIR. 1955 Nag. 44, the decisions relied upon by the learned District Judge, there is no warrant for reading into the wide language of the opening words of S.24 (1) (b) the qualification expressly stated in clause (a) and sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of the sub-section, that the Subordinate Court from which the suit is withdrawn must be a court competent to try and dispose of the same, I should think that material irregularity if, as is apparent, the only result of its order will be a sheer waste of its own time and the time and substance of the parties by the prosecution of an ineffectual trial. But ILR. 9 All. 191 AIR. 1928 Madras 400 and AIR. 1930 Lahore 195, to mention only a few of the many cases cited at the Bar, seem to be sufficient authority for the proposition that where a suit superior court under S.24 of the Code would be void and without jurisdiction. To the extent that AIR. 1934 All. 569 and AIR. 9 All. 191 AIR. 1928 Madras 400 and AIR. 1930 Lahore 195, to mention only a few of the many cases cited at the Bar, seem to be sufficient authority for the proposition that where a suit superior court under S.24 of the Code would be void and without jurisdiction. To the extent that AIR. 1934 All. 569 and AIR. 1955 Nagpur 44 (which were cases where the want of jurisdiction was territorial and not inherent) imply the contrary, I respectfully dissent; but whether a valid distinction may not be drawn in the case of want of territorial jurisdiction (a defect which is generally regarded as curable and, in any case, does not render the proceedings void) is a matter on which I am not, in this case, called upon to express any opinion. I allow the petition and set aside the order of transfer made by the District Court with costs there as well as here. Allowed.