ORDER Shivdayal, J. 1. This revision is directed against an order of the Third Additional District Judge, Gwalior, directing the appeal of the revision-petitioner to be returned to him for presentation to proper Court. 2. That appeal was from a preliminary decree dated December 5, 1966 passed by the Third Civil Judge Class II, Gwalior. The appeal was addressed to the Third Additional District Judge. This appeal was presented on February 23, 1967 to the "Clerk of the Court." The Clerk of the Court sent the appeal to the Third Additional District Judge. 3. The value of the appeal as put by the appellant was Rs. 500, although the value of the suit was Rs. 3000. 4. It is not in dispute that according to the Distribution memo issued by the District Judge the Court of the Third Additional District Judge was competent to hear an appeal the value of which was Rs. 3000. Paragraph 7 of the memo of appeal read thus :- 5. The Third Additional District Judge, by order dated 13-9-68, held that the appeal had been undervalued. The appellant then, by amending his memo of appeal, enhanced the value of the appeal from Rs. 500 to Rs 3000 and paid ad-valorem court-fee on the difference. 6. When this was done by the appellant the Third Additional District Judge found that the appeal could not be heard by him according to the Distribution Memo. Therefore by order dated March 31, 1970, he ordered the appeal to be returned to the appellant for presentation to the proper Court. Aggrieved by this last mentioned order the defendant preferred this revision. 7. It is contended by Shri Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner that the Court of the Third Additional District Judge and that of the District Judge and those of the other Additional District Judges are not distinct; they constitute but one Court. There is also a common Clerk of the Court to whom all appeals are presented. It is merely a ministerial matter and an internal arrangement under which the appeals are distributed for hearing among the District Judge and the Additional District Judges. On this basis it is urged that there was no question of returning the appeal for presentation to proper court. It is merely a ministerial matter and an internal arrangement under which the appeals are distributed for hearing among the District Judge and the Additional District Judges. On this basis it is urged that there was no question of returning the appeal for presentation to proper court. The appeal was presented to the "District Court" and now it is being returned for presentation to "District Court" and the appellant will have to present it afresh to the "District Court". According to the learned counsel all this is redundant, Reliance is placed on Noor Mohammad v. Prabhulal 1968 JLJ SN 55. 8. Shri Agrawal learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand, contends that the Court of the District Judge and those of the Additional District Judges are distinct and an Additional District Judge has no independent jurisdiction. Whatever cases are assigned to a particular Additional District Judge, he has jurisdiction only in respect of those cases. For this proposition he relies on Dharmasheela v. Ramdayal 1961 JLJ 466, Umasharan Saxena v. Mansaram 1968 JLJ SN 15 and Adul Salam v. Laxmising 1968 JLJ 343. 9. It is abundantly clear from the scheme of the Civil Courts Act that Court of the District Judge is distinct from the Court of an Additional District Judge and that Additional District Judge has the powers to discharge only those functions which the District Judge may assign to him. However, as soon as the assignment is there the Additional District Judge has jurisdiction to exercise the same powers as the District Judge (per Dharamsheela v. Ramdayal (supra). 10. Ordinarily when a Court has no jurisdiction to try a suit or appeal and there is another Court which has jurisdiction to try it the suit or appeal is to be returned to the plaintiff or the appellant, as the case may be, for presentation to the proper court. 11 Now the question is : Whether an Additional District Judge, when he finds that an appeal before him cannot be heard by him according to the Distribution Memo (the case having not been assigned to him by the District Judge) what is the proper course he has to adopt ? 11 Now the question is : Whether an Additional District Judge, when he finds that an appeal before him cannot be heard by him according to the Distribution Memo (the case having not been assigned to him by the District Judge) what is the proper course he has to adopt ? Must he refer the case to the District Judge to hear it himself or sent it to such an Additional District Judge who has jurisdiction according to the Distribution Memo or must he return the appeal to the appellant for presentation to the proper Court i.e. such an Additional District Judge who according to the Distribution Memo has jurisdiction. On this question there appears to be an uncertainty Mr. Justice Krishnan in Noor Mohammaa v. Prabhudayal 1968 JLJ SN 55 said :-- Certainly, the Additional District Judge who feels that the arrangement for convenience would be disturbed by his handling a particular case should send the file to the District Judge with a suggestion that it might be withdrawn and re-transferred to that Court to which it would be more convenient to do so : the District Judge in his turn may either accept the suggestion or send it back to the same Court. All this has nothing to do with the litigant On the other hand the decision of Mr. Justice Bhargava in Umasharan v. Mansaram 968 JLJ SN 15 does not appear to be in concordance with the observations just reproduced It is necessary that procedure and practice must be settled by a larger Bench on the question formulated above. 12. Let the papers be laid before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench to decide the question stated above. 13. The revision shall be listed before a Single Judge for hearing parties after the reference is answered. ORDER S.M.N. Raina, J. 14. Shivdayal, J. has referred the following question for decision: Whether an Additional District Judge, when he finds that an appeal before him cannot be heard by him according to the Distribution memo (the case having not been assigned to him by the District Judge) what is the proper course he has to adopt? ORDER S.M.N. Raina, J. 14. Shivdayal, J. has referred the following question for decision: Whether an Additional District Judge, when he finds that an appeal before him cannot be heard by him according to the Distribution memo (the case having not been assigned to him by the District Judge) what is the proper course he has to adopt? Must he refer the case to the District Judge to hear it himself or send it to such an Additional District Judge who has jurisdiction according to the Distribution Memo or must he return the appeal to the appellant for presentation to the proper Court i.e. such an Additional District Judge who according to the Distribution Memo has jurisdiction ? 15. The fact which give rise to this reference are as follows Non applicant No 1 Rameshchandra obtained a preliminary decree for accounts of a dissolved partnership against the applicant Balmukund. The applicant preferred an appeal against the said decree valuing the subject matter of the appeal at Rs. 500 only, although the suit for accounts was valued at Rs. 3,000 The appeal was addressed to the Third Additional District Judge and the memo, of appeal was presented on February 23, 1967 to the Clerk of Court. The Clerk of Court sent the appeal to the Third Additional District Judge. 16. According to the distribution memo issued by the District Judge, the Court of the Third Addl District Judge was competent to hear appeals of the value upto Rs. 15.00 only, The Third A.D.J., by order dated 13-9-1968 held that the appeal had been undervalued; The appellant then by amending his memo, of appeal enhanced the valuation of the appeal from Rs. 500 to Rs. 3,000 and paid ad valorem Court-fees on the difference After this was done the Third Addl. District Judge found that the appeal could not be heard by him according to the distribution memo. Therefore, by order dated March 31, 1970 he ordered that the memo, of appeal shall be returned to the appellant for presentation to proper Court. Being aggrieved thereby, the applicant preferred a revision petition out of which this reference arises. 17. District Judge found that the appeal could not be heard by him according to the distribution memo. Therefore, by order dated March 31, 1970 he ordered that the memo, of appeal shall be returned to the appellant for presentation to proper Court. Being aggrieved thereby, the applicant preferred a revision petition out of which this reference arises. 17. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant Shri B. D. Gupta is that the clerk of Court being a common receiving agency, the presentation of the memo of appeal to him should be deemed to be presentation to the Court of the District Judge According to him the distribution memo, prepared by the District Judge has not the force of law and it only provides for an internal arrangement whereby the appeals are distributed for hearing amongst the District Judge and the Addl. District Judges by the Clerk of Court, who merely performs a ministerial act. It is further urged that the District Judge and the Addl. District Judges are Judges of the same Court and once the Addl. District Judge had received the appeal for hearing he was competent to exercise jurisdiction in respect thereof irrespective of the distribution memo. His alternative argument is that if the Addl District Judge felt that it was not proper for him to hear the appeal in view of the distribution memo, the proper course for him was to send the file to the District Judge with a suggestion that it might be withdrawn and retransferred to the appropriate Court. Thus, it is contended that there was no justification for returning the memo, of appeal for presentation to proper Court and the order of the Third Addl, District Judge is, therefore, bad in law. 18. In support of his contention Shri Gupta has relied on the decision of Krishnan, J. in Noor Mohammad v. Prabhudayal 1968 JLJ SN 55 Bhargava, J. has, however, expressed a contrary view in Umasharan Saxena v. Mansaram 1968 JLJ SN 15, This reference has been made mainly in view of the conflicting decisions of this Court. 19. 18. In support of his contention Shri Gupta has relied on the decision of Krishnan, J. in Noor Mohammad v. Prabhudayal 1968 JLJ SN 55 Bhargava, J. has, however, expressed a contrary view in Umasharan Saxena v. Mansaram 1968 JLJ SN 15, This reference has been made mainly in view of the conflicting decisions of this Court. 19. The contention of Shri Gupta that the Clerk of Court being a common receiving agency of the memoranda of appeal and other documents, it is his duty to send the case to the proper Court and that the responsibility of the litigant ends with the presentation of the memo, of appeal to the Clerk of Court appears to be based on a misapprehension of the legal position in the matter Sub-rule (1) Rule 1 of O. IV C.P.C. provides that a suit shall be instituted by presenting a plaint to the Court or such officer as it appoints in this behalf. Similarly sub-rule (1) of R. 1 of O. 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that every appeal shall be preferred in the form of a memo, signed by the appellant or his pleader and presented to the Court or such officer as it appoints in this behalf Thus, it is the duty of the appellant to present the memo, of appeal either to the Court concerned or to such officer as it appoints in this behalf. The Clerk of Court is such an officer, authorised by the different Courts to receive plaints and memoranda of appeal on their behalf. He is thus a common agent of the different Courts and he is bound to forward the plaint or the memo, of appeal to the Court to which it is addressed and not to send it to any Court he thinks appropriate in view of the distribution memo or otherwise. Thus, it is the responsibility of the party concerned to see that the plaint or the memo, of appeal is addressed to the proper Court, and the fact that it is presented to the clerk of Court is of no consequence because he is bound to forward it to the Court to which it is addressed. 20. In the instant case, the memo of appeal was addressed to the Third Additional District Judge and was, therefore, forwarded to that Court. 20. In the instant case, the memo of appeal was addressed to the Third Additional District Judge and was, therefore, forwarded to that Court. Admittedly, according to the distribution memo, the Third Additional District Judge was competent to hear appeals of the value upto Rs. 1500. After the valuation of the appeal was raised to Rs. 3,000, by an amendment the Additional District Judge found that he was not competent to hear the appeal, and, therefore, returned the memo, of appeal for presentation to the proper Court. This order of the Additional District Judge has been assailed on the ground that both the District Judge and the Addl. District Judge are Judges of the same Court and, therefore, the Additional District Judge bad jurisdiction to hear the appeal. It is also urged in this connection that the order of distribution by the District Judge is purely a ministerial order and has not the force of law. We are unable to accept this contention for the following reasons. Section 3 of the M. P. Civil Courts Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) specifies the classes of Civil Courts as under :- (1) Court of District Judge, (2) Court of Additional District Judge, (3) Court of Civil Judge Class I, and (4) Court of Civil Judge Class II It is thus clear that the Court of Additional District Judge is quite distinct from the Court of District Judge and is for all purposes a separate Court. A similar view was expressed by Shivdayal, J., in Abdul Salam v. Laxmi Singh 1968 JLJ 348 . In Kuldip Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1956 SC 391 , their Lordships had occasion to consider whether the Court of Additional District Judge in Punjab was a separate and distinct Court from the Court of District Judge. As under section 18 of the Punjab Courts Act, the Court of the Additional District Judge was constituted a distinct class of Court their Lordships held that the Court of Addl, District Judge was not a Division Court of the Court of District Judge, but a separate and distinct Court of its own. The reasoning on the basis of which their Lordships arrived at the said conclusion is fully applicable to the present case in view of the relevant provisions of the M. P. Civil Courts Act, 1958. 21. The reasoning on the basis of which their Lordships arrived at the said conclusion is fully applicable to the present case in view of the relevant provisions of the M. P. Civil Courts Act, 1958. 21. It is significant that S. 13 of the Act provides that an appeal from a decree or order of the Court of Civil Judge Class I or Civil Judge Class II shall lie to the Court of District Judge. There is no mention of the Court of Additional District Judge in this section. The Additional District Judge derives his powers to function as an appellate Court under sub-sec. (2) of S. 7 which provides an under:-- An Additional District Judge shall discharge any of the functions of a District Judge, including the functions of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, which the District Judge may by general or special order assign to him and in the discharge of such functions he shall exercise the same powers as the District Judge. 22. Section 15 further empowers the District Judge to distribute the civil business cognizable by it among the Courts under its control. Thus, the powers of the Court of Addl. District Judge to hear an appeal are derived exclusively from the distribution memo, which is prepared by the District Judge in exercise of his powers under sub-sec. (2) of S. 7 read with S. 15. 23. There is thus no substance in the contention that the Addl. District Judge has inherent jurisdiction to hear an appeal, he and the District Judge being Judges of the same Court. It would also be incorrect to say that the distribution memo, is merely a ministerial or administrative order having no force of law. The memo, is in effect an order passed by the District Judge in exercise of his statutory powers under sub-sec. (2) of S. 7 and S. 15 of the Act and as such has the force of law. 24. As pointed out by Bhargava J. in paragraph 12 of Umasharan Saxena's case (supra), before the enactment of the Act in 1958, the Court of the Additional District Judge in the former State of Madhya Pradesh was not a separate Court. It was attached to the District Court inasmuch as the Additional District Judge was an additional Judge of the same Court. It was attached to the District Court inasmuch as the Additional District Judge was an additional Judge of the same Court. As such it was held in some Nagpur cases that the presentation of an appeal before an Additional District Judge was really a presentation to the District Court itself, which was one and indivisible. The decisions of the Nagpur High Court which were based on the position obtaining prior to the enactmenl of the Act could have no application now. 25. In Noor Mohammad v. Prabhudayal (supra) Krishnan J while dealing with a similar question doubted whether the distribution memo, prepared by the District Judge was a statutory order at all and made the following observations in para 8 regarding its legal effect:-- Considering that the so called distribution order has nothing to do with judicial matters, but it is one for the convenience of the Courts or rather one to save the District Judge the trouble of writing a transfer order on each of the cases, I am inclined to hold that it is a purely ministerial arrangement. It is for the convenience of the District Judge that the officer who is authorised to receive the memorandum of appeal takes them in batches to the different Additional Courts instead of placing them all before the District Judge. Certainly, on account of such an arrangement, whatever its justification on grounds of convenience, the litigants should not suffer. Krishnan J further observed in paragraph 9 as under :- I would hold the jurisdiction to be one and single for all these Judges including the District Judge subject only to an order of allotment as a matter of convenience. On the basis of the aforesaid observations he concluded that an Additional District Judge who feels that the arrangement for convenience would be disturbed by his handling a particular case should send the file to the District Judge with a suggesting that it might be withdrawn and re transferred to that Court to which it would be more convenient to do so. 26. With great respect we are unable to agree with the aforesaid view as it is not in consonance with the legal position in view of the statutory provisions referred to above. 26. With great respect we are unable to agree with the aforesaid view as it is not in consonance with the legal position in view of the statutory provisions referred to above. In our view, it would not be correct to hold that the jurisdiction of the District Judges and the Additional District Judges is one and single, subject only to an order of allotment as a matter of convenience. 27. As pointed out above, the Court of Additional District Judge is quite a distinct and a separate Court and its appellate jurisdiction is determined by the distribution memo, prepared by the District Judge. The Court of the Additional District Judge has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal unless it has been specifically assigned to him by the District Judge under sub-section (2) of section 7 of the Act or is within the pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction as determined by the distribution memo, prepared by him. If the Additional District Judge finds that he has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal, the proper course for him would be to return the memo, of appeal for presentation to the proper Court under 0.7 R. 11 C. P. C. read with section 107 C. P. C. add not to send the file to the District Judge with a suggestion that it may be transferred to the proper Court as suggested by Krishnan J, in the aforesaid case. We agree with the view expressed by Bhargava J. in Umasharan's case (supra). 28. We, therefore, answer the reference as under :-- Where an Additional District Judge finds that he has no jurisdiction to hear it under the distribution memo prepared by the District Judge, the proper course for him would be to return the memorandum of appeal for presentation to the proper Court and not to send it to the District Judge to hear it himself or to transfer it to such Court of Additional District Judge as he deems fit. ORDER Shivdayal. J. 29. This revision is directed against an order of the Third Additional District Judge, Gwalior, directing the appeal of the revision-petitioner to be returned to him for presentation to proper court. The reason for the order under revision was that the appeal memo was addressed to the "Third Additional District Judge, Gwalior" while according to the Distribution memo, he was not entitled to hear this appeal. 30. The reason for the order under revision was that the appeal memo was addressed to the "Third Additional District Judge, Gwalior" while according to the Distribution memo, he was not entitled to hear this appeal. 30. In view of the conflicting decisions on the point, I referred the question to a larger Bench as follows:-- Whether an Additional District Judge, when he finds that an appeal before him cannot be heard by him according to the Distribution Memo (the case having not been assigned to him by the District Judge) what is the proper course he has to adopt ? Must he refer the case to the District Judge to hear it himself or send it to such an Additional District Judge who has jurisdiction according to the Distribution memo, or must he return the appeal to the appellant for presentation to the proper court i.e. such an Additional District Judge who according to the Distribution Memo bas jurisdiction ? 31. The Division Bench has answered the question as under:-- Where an Additional District Judge finds that he has no jurisdiction to hear it under the Distribution Memo prepared by the District Judge, the proper course for him would be to return the memorandum of appeal for presentation to the proper court and not to send it to the District Judge to hear it himself or to transfer it to such Court of Addl. District Judge as he deems fit. 32. In accordance with the opinion of the Division Bench this revision is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs. 33. Shri Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner requests that the appeal memo may be returned to him here for taking necessary steps. It may be returned by the Registry here. Petition dismissed