JUDGMENT - M.S. DESHPANDE, J.:---This revision application by the original defendant is directed against the order passed by the Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nagpur, rejecting his application to treat Special Civil Suit No. 286 of 1984 as a fresh suit by following the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The opponent brought Civil Suit No. 1084 of 1980 for possession, arrears of licence fees and damages. The claim was valued at Rs. 6000/-. The applicant by his written-statement, raised an objection that the claim had been under valued. The suit was assigned to the 15th Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nagpur. While the evidence was being recorded, it came to light that the premises were worth Rs. 40,000/- and as the valuation exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), the Civil Judge passed an order on 2-3-1984 to the effect that as the valuation of the subject matter exceeded his pecuniary jurisdiction, the plaint be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to proper Court. The opponent-plaintiff thereupon filed an application for review and relying on Rule 189 of the Civil Manual, the Civil Judge made a reference to the District Judge. The learned District Judge made an order directing the suit to be sent to the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nagpur, in pursuance of Rule 189. The suit then came to be numbered as Special Civil Suit No. 286 of 1984 and a fresh summons was issued to the applicant. The applicant then made an application to the Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division) on 5-12-1888, stating that he had not been given a chance to file a written statement in the suit and what was on record was the written-statement filed in Original Civil Suit No. 1084, 1980 and that the suit should be treated as a new suit and it should be proceeded with as such. As this application was rejected, the defendant has filed this revision application questioning the order passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nagpur. 3. Rule 189 of the Civil Manual, Volume-I, issued by this Court for the guidance of the Civil Courts is as follows :--- "189. As this application was rejected, the defendant has filed this revision application questioning the order passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nagpur. 3. Rule 189 of the Civil Manual, Volume-I, issued by this Court for the guidance of the Civil Courts is as follows :--- "189. When a suit assigned for disposal by a Civil Judge of the Senior Division to his Joint Civil Judge of the Junior Division is found by the latter to be beyond his pecuniary jurisdiction , he should request his District Judge to transfer the suit administratively to the Civil Judge of the Senior Division, and not return the plaint to the plaintiff being judicially presented to the proper Court or return it to the Civil Judge of the Senior Division." 4. According to Shri Gaikwad, the learned Counsel for the applicant, the provisions of Rule 189 are independent and section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 would have no application to it and it would, therefore, follow that sub-section (2) of that section, which gives a choice to the transferee Court with regard to the procedure, would not be available in the present case. Sub-section (1) of section 24 opens with the words "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", and then provides for the transfer of any suit or withdrawal of any suit pending in any Court subordinate to it and to transfer it for trial to any Court subordinate to it. Sub-section (2) provides that where any suit or proceeding has been transferred or withdrawn under sub-section (1), the Court which is thereafter to try or dispose of such suit or proceeding may, subject to any special directions in the case of an order of transfer, either re-try it or proceed from the point at which it was transferred or withdrawn. It is apparent that section 24 merely provides for a transfer, and the power exercised either by the High Court or the District Court would not enlarge the powers of the transferee Court and they would be subject to the limitations provided in the Code of Civil Procedure. It is apparent that section 24 merely provides for a transfer, and the power exercised either by the High Court or the District Court would not enlarge the powers of the transferee Court and they would be subject to the limitations provided in the Code of Civil Procedure. This Court in (L.S. Sherlekar v. D.L. Agarwal)1, A.I.R. 1968 Bombay 439 observed as follows :--- "Under the Bombay Civil Courts Act, there is only one Court of the Civil judge, and all other Judges are attached to that Court to assist the Civil Judge's Court. No doubt, once an order assigning the suit is made by the Civil Judge himself, the Civil Judge has no right to withdraw that suit from his file. Even so, as it is not a different Court but only a part of the same Court, an order for transfer from the Civil Judge to another under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not required to be made by the District Court or by the High Court, in cases governed by section 37 of the Civil Courts Act. The District Judge's power under that section is distinct from that under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure and intended to avoid inconvenience to litigants." Section 37, which fell for being considered in that case relates to temporary vacancies and forms part of Part-VII. 5. Under section 24 of the Bombay Civil Act, the Civil Judges are of two classes; the jurisdiction of a Civil Judge (Senior Division) extending to all original suits and proceedings of a civil nature and the jurisdiction of a Civil Judge (Junior Division) extending to all original suits and proceedings of a civil nature wherein the subject matter does not exceed in amount or value twenty-five thousand rupees. 6. The present suit, though originally presented in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) on the basis of the valuation in the plaint, came to be allotted to a Civil Judge (Junior Division) for disposal, and at the stage of evidence that Court found that it had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and decide it. Rule 189, as I have already indicated, prescribes the procedure in the event of a Civil Judge (Junior Division) finding the suit to be beyond his pecuniary jurisdiction. Rule 189, as I have already indicated, prescribes the procedure in the event of a Civil Judge (Junior Division) finding the suit to be beyond his pecuniary jurisdiction. The reference in Rule 189 of the Civil Manual about the transferring of the suit administratively to the Civil Judge of the Senior Division occurs because initially within his original jurisdiction the Civil Judge (Senior Division) is competent to entertain any suit of a civil nature and all the suits are instituted in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), at the time of presentation of the plaint, therefore, there can be no question of the plaint being presented to a wrong Court, even if subsequently the trial Judge, dealing with the matter, may find that he cannot decide it. It is in these circumstances, by the rule framed by this Court, that the plaint is not to be returned to the plaintiff judicially for being presented to the proper Court, or to be returned to the Civil Judge of the Senior Division. 7. Shri Gaikwad urged that when the District Judge acts pursuant to Rule 189, he would not be acting under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, because then though he may not be acting upon the application of any parties, he would also not be acting on his own motion, because he would be acting upon a reference made to him by the Civil Judge concerned, under Rule 189 of the Civil Manual. It must be noted that Rule 189 can, at best, prescribe the procedure and the manner in which the District Judge may be approached in the given circumstance for passing suitable orders. It cannot be the source of the power to transfer or withdraw suits or assign them to other Courts. The source of that power would be section 24, Civil Procedure Code and no other. The District Judge, even upon a reference made by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the circumstances to which rule 189 of the Civil Manual would apply, would be acting on his motion. It is not, therefore, possible to accept Shri Gaikwad's contention in this respect. 8. The crucial question, however, is about the procedure that has to be followed in such an eventuality by the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division). It is not, therefore, possible to accept Shri Gaikwad's contention in this respect. 8. The crucial question, however, is about the procedure that has to be followed in such an eventuality by the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division). In the present case, it is apparent that if the Civil Judge (Junior Division) did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit, anything done by him, would not be valid and would be liable to be questioned on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, to entertain the matter. If the matter, therefore, goes from his life to that of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and if the challenge on the basis of lack of jurisdiction is to be avoided, the only course open to the transferee Court, if it happens to be a Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), would be to retry it and not to proceed from the point at which it was transferred or withdrawn from the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division). Only then the further proceedings would be valid. 9. This was exactly the stand taken by the present applicant before the learned Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division) when the matter come before him upon an order made by the District Judge in pursuance of Rule 189 of the Civil Manual. In fact, fresh summons was issued by the transferee Court to the applicant, and the proper course for it would have been to ask the applicant to file a written-statement afresh and then decide the suit de novo according to law. It would not be open to the Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division) to try the suit from the stage at which it was at the time of the withdrawal and transfer, before the Civil Judge (Junior Division). 10. In the result, the rule is made absolute. The order passed by the Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division is set aside and he is directed to retry the suit as if it was a new suit instituted before him by the filing of the plaint. Since the plaint was initially presented in the year 1980, I direct the Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division) to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. There will be no order as to the costs of this revision application. Rule made absolute. -----