( 1 ) THIS second appeal is by the defendants arising out of a suit instituted by the respondent-plaintiff for possession of the suit land bearing s. No. 172/4 measuring 4 acres and 19 guntas and assessed at Rs. 10-2-0 of terdal village. The suit as originally framed was onp for permanent injunction. Subsequently, the plaintiff ssought permission to amend the plaint seeking a decree for eviction on the ground that he has been dispossessed from the suit land during the pendency of the suit. That application for amendment has been allowed. The defendants resisted the suit and contended that they are the tenants of the suit land and are in possession of the same in that capacity. They denied that the plaintiff is the tenant of the suit land It is not disputed that the suit land belongs to the Padaki family. The case of the defendants is that the suit land was taken on lease in the year 1944. In support of that contention, the defendant relied upon a certified copy of the registered lease deed alleged to have been executed by the defendants in favour of Narayan padaki, the landlord, on the 4th of February 1944 which has been produced at SI. No. 1 with Ext. 12. According to the defendants, the became tenants under the said lease deed which provided a period of six years. Their further case is that even after the expiry of the said period, they have continued to be in possession of the suit land as tenants ( 2 ) THE learned Munsiff after considering the evidence on record decreed the plaintiff's suit. The said decree has been affirmed in appeal by the learned District Judge Though the appeal was filed by the defendants in the Court of the Civil Judee at Biiapur, the same was subsequently withdrawn to the District Court at Bijapur in exercise of the powers conferred on the District Court under S. 24 CPC , to be hereinafter referred to as the C. P. Code. ( 3 ) SRI G. D. Shirgurkar, the learned Counsel for the appellants firstly contended that the decree passed by the learned District Judge is without jurisdiction. ( 3 ) SRI G. D. Shirgurkar, the learned Counsel for the appellants firstly contended that the decree passed by the learned District Judge is without jurisdiction. He submitted that as the decree was passed by the learned Munsiff on the 28th of February 1966, after the coming into force of the Mysore Civil Courts Act, 1964, it is only the Court of the Civil judee that was competent to entertain and dispose of the appeal in view of S. 20 of the Mysore Civil Courts Act. It was therefore urged that though the defendants preferred their apoeal before a proper forum, the withdrawal of the appeal by the District Court to its file and the disposal of the said appeal is without jurisdiction. It is clear from the opening paragraph of the judgment of the learned Dist. Judge that he has withdrawn the appeal to his Court from the Court of the Civil Judge where the appeal was pending as there was not sufficient work for his Court. Though the provision of law under which the learned District Judge withdrew the appeal to his file has not been stated, it is clear that the same must have been done in exercise of the powers vested in the District Court under Section 24 of the CPC. Sri Shirgurkar relied upon the provisions of s. 20 of the Mysore Civil Courts Act, 1964, which reads as follows :"20. Appeals from Munsiff. Appeals from the decree and orders passed by a Munsiff in original suits and proceedings of a civil nature shall when such appeals are allowed by law, lie to the court of the Civil Judge. "it cannot be d sputed in view of S. 20 of the Mysore Civil Courts Act that an appeal against the decree passed by the learned Munsiff lies to they court of the Civil Judg'e, Sri Shirgurkar urged that the withdrawal off the appeal by the District Court to its file is without jurisdiction. His submission is tha the power under S. 24 of the CPC can be exercised only consistent with the provisions of the Mysore Civil Courts Act and not in contravention pf tje same. It was urged that an appeal against the decree passed by the Court of the Munsiff lies only to the Court of the Civil judge under S. 20 of the Mysore Civil Courts Act. It was urged that an appeal against the decree passed by the Court of the Munsiff lies only to the Court of the Civil judge under S. 20 of the Mysore Civil Courts Act. As there is no provision under the Act entitling the District Court to entertain appeals against the decrees passed by the Court of the Munsiff, Sri Shirgurkar urged that the power of withdrawl under S. 24 of the CPC. cannot be invoked Section 24 of the CPC. empowers the High Court or the District court to transfer or withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending for trial or disposal in any Court subordinate to them. S. 24 of the cpc. reads as follows:"24. General power of transfer and withdrawal, (1) On the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and after hearing such of them as desire to be heard, or of its own motion without such notice, the High Court or the District Court may at any stage. (a) transfer any suit, appeal or other proceedings pending before it for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same, or (b) withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in any Court subordinate to it, and (i) try or dispose of the same; or (ii) transfer the same for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same; or (iii) re-transfer the same for trial or disposal of to the Court from which it was withdrawn. "the relevant clause that is applicable to the present case is S. 24 (1) (b) (i) of the CPC. Under the said clause, the High Court or the District court may at any stage withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceedings pending in any Court subordinate to it and try or dispose of the same the power under S. 24 can be exercised either on the application of the parties or suo motu by the High Court or the District Court. The condition necessary to be satisfied in order to make an order under S. 24 (1), (b) (i) of the CPC. is that the suit, appeal or proceeding must be pending in a Court subordinate to the Court exercising power under S. 24. The condition necessary to be satisfied in order to make an order under S. 24 (1), (b) (i) of the CPC. is that the suit, appeal or proceeding must be pending in a Court subordinate to the Court exercising power under S. 24. If the suit, appeal or other proceedings is pending in a Court subordinate to the district Court, the District Court is competent under S. 24 (1) (b) (i) of the CPC. to withdraw and try or dispose of the same. If cannot be disputed that the Court of the Civil Judge is a Court subordinate to the District court. The District Court is competent to hear appeals from the decrees and orders passed by the Civil Judge in proceedings governed by s. 19 of the Mysore Civil Courts Act. As the Court of the Civil Judge is therefore a Court subordinate to the District Court, the necessary condition for invoking the power of withdrawal under S. 24 (1) (b) (i) of the cpc. is fully satisfied. The argument of Sri Shirgurkar is that as appeals against the decrees passed by the Munsiff lie only to the Court of the civil Judge under S. 20 of the Mysore Civil Courts Act, the District Court cannot assume jurisdiction to hear such appeals by exercising power under S. 24 of the CPC. The submission of Sri Shirgurkar is that it is only if the District Court was otherwise competent to hear appeals against the decrees passed by the Court of the Munsiff under the Mysore Civil courts Act that the District Court could have exercised the power under s. 24 (1) (b) (i) of the CPC. In my opinion, it is wholly unnecessary for invoking the power under S. 24 (1) (b) (i) of the CPC. that there should be a provision in the Mysore Civil Courts Act providing an appeal to the district Court against the decree or order passed by the Court of the munsiff. As long as the suit, appeal or other proceeding is pending in a court subordinate to the District Court, the District Court can exercise the power under S. 24 of the CPC. In support of his submission Sri Shirgurkar relied upon a decision of the Calcutta High in Ajit Kumar Bhunia v. Kanan Bala Devi, AIR 1860 Cal. 565. As long as the suit, appeal or other proceeding is pending in a court subordinate to the District Court, the District Court can exercise the power under S. 24 of the CPC. In support of his submission Sri Shirgurkar relied upon a decision of the Calcutta High in Ajit Kumar Bhunia v. Kanan Bala Devi, AIR 1860 Cal. 565. In para 17 of the said judgment, it has been observed as follows:"s. 24 CPC. postulates transfer to a competent Coart, such competency to be found in and by virtue of some other statutory provision, notification or otherwise and not under or by virtue of anything, contained in the said S. 24, itself. "that was a case of an exercise of power, not of withdrawing a case from the Court subordinate to it, but of transferring the same to another Court subordinate to it. That case was obviously governed by S. 24 (1) (b) (ii) of the CPC. The transfer contemplated under S. 24 (1) (b) (ii) can only be made to a Court subordinate to the High Court or District Court which court is competent to try or dispose of the same. The question whether that Court to which the case is transferred is competent to try or dispose of the same becomes relevant for the purpose of making transfer under s. 24 (1) (b) (ii) of the CPC. Tn ascertaining as to whether the Court to which the case is transferred is competent to try or dispose of the same, one has necessarily to look into the other statutory provisions. But, when a suit, appeal of other proceeding pending in a Court subordinate to the high Court or the District Court is withdrawn by the High Court or the district Court, that question does not arise. As long as the proceeding is pending in a Court subordinate to the High Court or the District Court, the High Court or the District Court is competent to exercise power under s. 24 ( (1) (b) (i) of the CPC. The decision of the Calcutta High Court was one relating to exercise of power under S. 24 (1) (b) (ii) of the CPC. Hence, the same is not of any assistance to the appellants in this case, sri Shirgurkar next relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in lakshmi Narain v. I Addl. District Judge, AIR 1964 SC 489 . Hence, the same is not of any assistance to the appellants in this case, sri Shirgurkar next relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in lakshmi Narain v. I Addl. District Judge, AIR 1964 SC 489 . That was a case of transfer by the High Court of appeals pending before it to a Court subordinate to it in view of alteration in the jurisdiction brought about by the amendment to the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act. The Supreme court came to the conclusion that in view of S. 3 (1) of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, the appeals that were properly presented to the High Court were required to be heard and disposed of by the High court itself notwithstanding the amendment that was effected to the bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887. It is clear that the case dealt with by the Supreme Court was also not one in which the High court had exercised power under S. 24 (1) (b) (i) of the CPC. withdrawing a proceeding from a Court subordinate to it to itself. The decision of the supreme Court, therefore, is also not of any assistance to the appellants in this case. I am, of the opinion that the withdrawal of the appeal by the District Court from the file of the Civil Judge was legal and proper. ( 4 ) SRI Sirgurkar next contended that the learned District Judged committed an error in not admitting in evidence the certified copy of the lease deed produced at Sl. No. 1 with Ext. 12. * * * as the document does not relate to the suit land, it cannot be contended that the finding recorded by the learned District Judge without taking the said document into consideration, is in any way vitiated. The learned district Judge after assessing the oral and other documentary evidence on record has recorded a finding to the effect that the plaintiff has established his tenancy pleaded by him. That finding does not call for interference. ( 5 ) IT was next urged by Sri Shirgurkar that though the application for amendment was allowed, the same has not been carried out in the plaint. That finding does not call for interference. ( 5 ) IT was next urged by Sri Shirgurkar that though the application for amendment was allowed, the same has not been carried out in the plaint. But, it is necessary to note that in both the Courts, the parties have proceeded on the basis that the amendment has been carried out and that the suit is one for possession on the ground that the plaintiff was dispossessed during the pendency of the suit. Merely because the amendment has not been carried out in the plaint, that by itself is not a good ground to interfere with the decree passed by the Court below. Besides, as the plaintiff was dispossessed during the pendency of the suit originally brought for a permanent injunction, even without such an amendment, the Court was competent to make a decree for possession in favour of the plaintiff. ( 6 ) FOR the reasons stated above, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. --- *** --- .