S. NARAYAN, J. ( 1 ) BY the impugned order dated August 25, 1995, the learned Judge, 4th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta refused the prayer of the plaintiff-petitioner to transfer the pending Matrimonial Suit No. 107 of 1990 to the Family Court since established in the City at Calcutta under the Family Courts Act, 1984 and, hence was an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed before this court. ( 2 ) THE contextual facts are that some time before the establishment of the Family Court in the City of Calcutta under the Family Courts Act, 1984, vide Notification No. 15265 dated 25 August, 1994 issued by the Government of West Bengal, there was a Matrimonial Suit No. 107 of 1990 instituted by the petitioner-husband praying for a decree of divorce under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 against the respondent-wife filed in the court of Additional District Judge, Burdwan at Asansol. There is no dispute raised to the hard fact that the court of Additional District Judge, Burdwan at Asansol had most certainly jurisdiction to try the suit in accordance with law. To put it in other words, there was no lack of jurisdiction with the court of Additional District judge, Burdwan at Asansol to try and dispose of the suit. There was however, an application under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by and at the instance of the Opposite Party-wife, which was numbered as C. O. No. 1882 of 1992 of this court, and was disposed of by this court by the order dated 8. 2. 92 while allowing the prayer for transfer and directing that the Matrimonial Suit be transferred to the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta to either hear the suit or transfer the same to some other Judge competent to hear and dispose of the same. The suit was, thereupon, transferred to 4th Bench of the City Civil Court at Calcutta where it was re-numbered as Matrimonial Suit No. 95 of 1993 (as against Matrimonial Suit No. 107 of 1990 ). ( 3 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, a Family Court was established in the city of Calcutta as per Notification No. 15265 dated 25 August, 1994 of the Government of West Bengal issued in exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (66 of 1984 ). ( 3 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, a Family Court was established in the city of Calcutta as per Notification No. 15265 dated 25 August, 1994 of the Government of West Bengal issued in exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (66 of 1984 ). Thereupon, the husband-petitioner moved the court below for transfer of the suit to the Family Court, brought into existence in the City of Calcutta. Whereas, it is true that by the Notification of the State Government, as referred to above, a Family Court for City of Calcutta has since been established with local limits of the jurisdiction in the City of Calcutta, i. e. to say, the area comprised within the local limits for the time being of the ordinary original Civil Jurisdiction of the High Court at Calcutta and, further, in terms of the provision under section 7 and 8 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 every suit or proceeding of the nature referred to in the Explanation to sub-section (1) of section 7, which was pending immediately before the establishment of such Family Courts before any District Court or Sub-ordinate court shall stand transferred to such Family Courts on the date on which it is established. ( 4 ) THERE was however, some special distinguishing factor with the instant case. It is true that de hors the special distinguishing factor (to be referred to hereinafter), the Matrimonial suit-in-question pending in the City Civil Court at Calcutta should have been transferred to the Family Court but here was a case which stood on some different footing. ( 5 ) BE it recorded with much emphasis that the suit-in-question was not pending in the City Civil Court at Calcutta because of its Original and Ordinary course of territorial jurisdiction, rather the suit has been transferred from the Ordinary and Original Jurisdiction of the District Judge (Additional District Judge), Burdwan at Asansol. It was on the intervention of this Court (High Court) on an application under section 24 of the CPC that by an order dated 8. 2. It was on the intervention of this Court (High Court) on an application under section 24 of the CPC that by an order dated 8. 2. 92 passed in C. O. No. 1882 of 1992 that the suit was transferred from the court of Additional District Judge, Burdwan at Asansol to the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta with liberty to him either to hear the suit himself or to transfer it to some other Judge competent to hear and dispose of the same. I feel inclined also to mention that the reason behind such transfer from Asansol to Calcutta was not because of want of jurisdiction with the court at Asansol. The order dated 8. 2. 92 of the this court clearly speaks that the order of transfer was being passed considering the difficulties which the wife-O. P. may have to face if it suit is heard at Asansol. ( 6 ) FROM what has been found above, it is manifest on the record that the Matrimonial Suit was pending before the court below i. e. the Judge, 4th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta not in normal course or by way of its Original and Ordinary Jurisdiction, rather it has been transferred to him by this Court (High Court) under section 24 of the CPC. ( 7 ) IT is deemed necessary to point out that section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure confers a general power upon the High Court or the District Court, as the case may be, to transfer, withdraw and transfer suits, appeals and other proceedings subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same. No where in the special Act as contain in the Family Courts Act, 1984, there is any provision or indication to over-ride the general power of transfer as conferred under section 24 of the CPC. The Original Jurisdiction of the High Court in respect of the matters of suit, that may fall under the explanation to section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, is not ousted and the High Court can continue to exercise its jurisdiction notwithstanding the coming into force of the family Courts Act. The powers of transfer as contemplated under section 24 of the CPC could not have been whittled or taken away by provision of section 8 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. The powers of transfer as contemplated under section 24 of the CPC could not have been whittled or taken away by provision of section 8 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. ( 8 ) THE legal proposition on the point can be viewed with yet another angle. Section 8 (c) (ii) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 indicates that every suit or proceeding of the nature of a matrimonial suit falling in the category of Explanation to sub-section (1) of section 7 of the said Act, which would have been required to be instituted or taken before or by such Family Courts if, before it on which such suit or proceeding of the suit was taken, this Act had come into force and such Family Courts had been established shall stand transferred to such Family Courts on the date on which it was established. In the instant case, it has to be noticed that even if the Family Court in the City of Calcutta had been established before the initiation of the suit-in-question, it (the suit) was not required to be instituted in the said Family Court at Calcutta. The suit-in-question was initiated by instituting the same in the District Court of Burdwan at Asansol in the year 1990, which had then certainly jurisdiction to try but for the intervention of this court at subsequent stage in exercise of the powers conferred under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In this view of the matter as well, I do not find a reasonable proposition of law in favour of transfer of the pending Matrimonial Suit-in-question from the court of learned Judge, 4th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta to the Family Court in the City of Calcutta. ( 9 ) IN the premises, I do not find anything wrong so as to interfere with the impugned order passed by the court below. This revisional petition is devoid of merit and accordingly, it is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed