Judgment : Petitioners are aggrieved by the rejection of the application filed by them under Sec.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for retention of the suit in O.S. No.309 of 1994 for the purpose of joint trial along with O.S. No.405 of 1994 on the file of Sub Court, Periakulam. 2. The short facts are: Respondents filed O.S. No.309 of 1994 on the file of Sub Court, Periakulam, for injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with their possession. The suit was valued at Rs. 16,000. The petitioners filed O.S. No.405 of 1994 against the respondents and three others for specific performance of an agreement. That suit is valued at Rs.25,00,000. By an order dated 27. 1995 passed in I.A. No.332 of 1995, the Subordinate Judge directed a joint trial of both the suits. Accordingly, the two suits are being tried jointly and one witness has also been examined. 3. In the meanwhile, Tamil Nadu Civil Courts and Madras City Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 1995, Tamil Nadu Act 28 of 1995, whereby the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Munsif has been enhanced to Rs.30,000. Sec.4(2) of the said Act reads that all suits and proceedings of which the amount or value of the subject-matter exceeds Rupees fifteen thousand but does not exceed Rupees thirty thousand and pending in any Sub Court or District Court, as the case may be, on the date of the commencement of the Act, shall stand transferred to the court of the District Munsif having jurisdiction over the matter. In view of the provisions of the said Act, the Subordinate Judge has opined that the suit O.S. No.309 of 1994 stands statutorily transferred to the court of the District Munsif and it cannot be continued on his file to be tried along with O.S.No.405 of 1994. In that view, the learned Judge has rejected the application filed by the petitioners herein for retention of the said suit on his file. 4. The Subordinate Judge has observed that the remedy of the petitioners is to seek transfer of the concerned suit from the Court of the District Munsif after the papers reached that court. No doubt, technically the view expressed by the learned Subordinate Judge is correct. But. the facts and circumstances of the case must be looked into in order that justice must be rendered to the parties. No doubt, technically the view expressed by the learned Subordinate Judge is correct. But. the facts and circumstances of the case must be looked into in order that justice must be rendered to the parties. It is not as if that the Sub Court lost its jurisdiction to try the suit of a value below Rs.30,000. Further, the suit O.S. No.309 of 1994 has already been directed to be tried jointly along with O.S. No.405 of 1994 on the file of Sub Court. The latter suit cannot be transferred to the file of the District Munsif, as the value is Rs.25,00,000. Necessarily O.S. No.309 of 1994 has to be returned on the file of Sub Court to be tried along with O.S. No.405 of 1994. It is also to be noted that the trial has commenced and a witness has been examined. 5. In those circumstances, the interests of justice will be best served only by directing retention of O.S. No.309 of 1994 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Periakulam. The Subordinate Judge, Periakulam, is directed to retain O.S. No.309 of 1994 on his file and try the same along with O.S. No.405 of 1994 jointly. The civil revision petition is ordered accordingly.