Judgment :- Petitioner, Devu alias Delvanal Ammal, seeks to revise the order on O.P. No. 62 of 1966 on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Villapuram. The Respondent, Kuppammal, filed the suit, V.M. No. 167 of 1966 on the file of the Village Court, Pldagam village, to recover a hand loan of Rs. 195 from the petitioner. The petitioner merely sent a notice to the village court that it had no jurisdiction to try the suit instead of appearing in that court and contesting the suit on that ground. The suit was decreed ex parte. Thereupon, he preferred O.P. No. 62 of 1966 on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Villupuram, under S. 73 of the Madras Village Courts Act, to revise the ex parte decree passed by the Village Court, Pidagam village. But the learned District Munsif dismissed the petition on wholly untenable grounds. Hence the petitioner has coma forward with this civil revision petition. The learned District Munsif has relied on S. 21 of the Civil Procedure Code which states that no objection as to place of suing shall be allowed by any appellate or revisional court unless such objection was taken in the court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled at or before such settlement, and unless there pas been a consequent failure of justice. The learned District Munsif would have been justified in relying on S. 21 Civil Procedure Code, if the plaint contained sufficient averments to show that the Village Court, Pidagam, had jurisdiction to try the suit. But it is clear from the plaint filed by the respondent in the Village Court, Pidagam, that the petitioner is a resident of Shanmaghaparam colony. It is not even stated that the hand loan was given within the jurisdiction of the Village Court, Pidagam. On the ether hand, it is Stated in the last paragraph of the plaint filed in the village rout that as there is no V.P.Cs. evidently meaning the Village Panchayat Court, in the place where the suit ought to have been fled, the suit was filed in the Pidagam village court. This is obviously incorrect. On the ether hand, it is Stated in the last paragraph of the plaint filed in the village rout that as there is no V.P.Cs. evidently meaning the Village Panchayat Court, in the place where the suit ought to have been fled, the suit was filed in the Pidagam village court. This is obviously incorrect. If there is no village court in a particular village, the District Munsif having territorial jurisdiction in that village will jurisdiction to try the salt, if he has small cause jurisdiction and if there is a separate Small Cause Court there, that court will have jurisdiction to try the salt, having regard to the nature of the suits filed in village court. In fact, under S. 20-A of the Madras Village Courts Act, if a suit which is triable by a village court is instituted in the court of a District Munsif, he may, unless sufficient reasons exist to the contrary, transfer it to the Village Court. Under S. 20-A(2) where a District Munsif tries a suit which is triable by a village court and he is of opinion that the suit ought to have been instituted in the village court, no costs shall be allowed to a successful plaintiff and a suscessful defendant shall be allowed his costs as between pleader and client. S. 73 of the Village Courts Act deals with the powers of a District Munsif as a court of revision. Under the section, the District Munsif may, on a petition being presented within 60 days from the date of any decree or order of a village court by any party deeming himself aggrieved by such decree or order, act aside each decree or order on the ground of its having exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or otherwise acted Illegally or with material irregularity. Thus the lack of territorial jurisdiction is a question which the District Munsif should have dealt with on the original petition filed by the petition. It is clear from what I have stated that the Village Court, Pidagam, had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the sail filed by the respondent, Kuppammal. The decree and order of the learned District Mussif in O.P. 62 of 1966 on his file an well as the decree and judgment of the village court. It is clear from what I have stated that the Village Court, Pidagam, had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the sail filed by the respondent, Kuppammal. The decree and order of the learned District Mussif in O.P. 62 of 1966 on his file an well as the decree and judgment of the village court. Pidagam are set aside and the plaint is ordered to be returned for being presented in the court having jurisdiction to entertain the same. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.