N. S. SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the defendants, petitioners herein, for transfer of a case being Civil Suit No. 1 of 2003 from the Court of the District Judge (Special division-II) to the Court of the District Judge (East and North), Gangtok by contending inter alia, that initially the plaintiff, the opposite party herein, instituted a suit being Civil Suit no. 2 of 2003 against the present petitioners as defendants in the Court of the District Judge (East and North), Gangtok for a decree of eviction and recovery of possession of the suit premises and for also recovery of arrear rents, mesne profits and other reliefs and during the pendency of the said suit, the defendants/petitioners filed an application under Section 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil procedure on 11th March 2003 in the Court of the District Judge (East and North), Gangtok for a stay of the proceedings of the said Civil suit No. 2 of 2003 till the final disposal of a case being Review Application No. 1 of 2002 which arose against a related order passed in civil Suit No. 7 of 2001, which was also instituted against the present petitioners for identical relief. But, in the meantime, under a related administrative order dated 12th March 2003 of this Court, 8 (eight) cases including the Civil Suit No. 2 of 2003 were transferred from the Court of the District and Sessions Judge (East and North) to the Court of the District and sessions Judge (Special Division-I) and, thereafter, on the motion of the District Judge (Special division-I) pertaining to his inability to try the suit as he appeared against the defendant no. 2 before this Court on the same subject matter while he was a practicing lawyer, the suit was transferred by this Court, by an administrative order dated 17th April 2003 to the Court of the District Judge (Special Division-II)and the suit was renumbered as Civil suit No. 1 of 2003 of the said Court. 2 before this Court on the same subject matter while he was a practicing lawyer, the suit was transferred by this Court, by an administrative order dated 17th April 2003 to the Court of the District Judge (Special Division-II)and the suit was renumbered as Civil suit No. 1 of 2003 of the said Court. It is also the case of the petitioners that one Smt. Ajey bhutiani also instituted Civil Suit No. 7 of 2001 against the defendant No. I/petitioner and another family member of the defendant/petitioner o. 2 for eviction of them from the suit premises, but the said suit was withdrawn on the prayer of the plaintiff with liberty to file a fresh suit vide Order dated 24th January 2002 and against that Order of 24th January 2002, the defendant/petitioner No. 2 herein filed an application on 19th February 2002 for review of the said Order dated 24th January 2002 in the Court of the District Judge (East and North), gangtok and the same is still pending for disposal in the said Court. According to the petitioners, they did not get any opportunity to point out that for identical relief as sought for by one Smt. Azey Bhutiani in the previous litigation is pending in the Court of the District judge (East and North), Gangtok and for the ends of justice and for proper adjudication, both litigations should be heard by the same Court, i. e. the Court of the District Judge (East and north), Gangtok. These are the main grounds as mentioned above with which the petitioners sought for transfer of the case from the court of the District Judge (Special Division-II)to the Court of the District Judge (East and north), Gangtok. ( 2 ) MR. S K. Home Choudhury, learned counsel, contended that the Civil Suit No. 1 of 2003 exclusively falls within the ambit of the special Act, namely, the Gangtok Rent control and Eviction Act,. 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1956) and that being the position, such suit has to be adjudicated by the Court specified under Section 4 of the Act. According to Mr. Home Choudhury, learned senior counsel, the original lowest Court is the civil Judge's Court and the District Judge (East and North) is the competent Court having jurisdiction to try the Civil Suit No. l of 2003 in terms of the provisions of the Act of 1956. According to Mr. Home Choudhury, learned senior counsel, the original lowest Court is the civil Judge's Court and the District Judge (East and North) is the competent Court having jurisdiction to try the Civil Suit No. l of 2003 in terms of the provisions of the Act of 1956. Learned senior counsel further contended that the Court of the District Judge (East and North), gangtok is the re-designate Court as specified in the Section 4 of the Act and as such, the said Court has jurisdiction to try the said suit as the cause of action of the suit arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the said Court and not in the Court of the District Judge (Special division-H ). Supporting his contention Mr. Home Choudhury, learned senior counsel has drawn my attention to the provisions of law laid down in Section 3 (12) of the Sikkim Interpretation and General Clauses Act, 1977, in short Act of 1977; the related notification dated 17th November, 1973 issued by the Secretary to the Chogyal of Sikkim, Gangtok; the related decision of this Court rendered in sagarmull Agarwala u. Union of India reported in 1979 Sikkim Law Journal (Page 59 relevant page 63) and also Government notification dated 19th July, 1994 and further contended that as the Court of District Judge (Special division-H) has no territorial jurisdiction, any order or decree passed in the related cases cannot be executed and the same shall be void ab-initio and apart trom that, it would be for the ends of justice and proper adjudication of the litigation between the parties, the Civil Suit no. l of 2003 may be heard and disposed of by the District Judge (East and North), Gangtok where the said Review Application No. l of 2002 is pending. It was also argued by the learned senior counsel that the same cause of action arose in both the Civil Suit No. 1 of 2003 and Review Application No. 1 of 2002 and that being the position, these cases should be heard by the same court, i. e. the District Judge (East and North), Gangtok. These are the points and grounds raised by the petitioners for transfer of the Civil Suit No. 1 of 2003 pending in the court of District Judge (Special Divison-II) to the Court of District Judge (East and North), gangtok. ( 3 ) AT the hearing, Mr. These are the points and grounds raised by the petitioners for transfer of the Civil Suit No. 1 of 2003 pending in the court of District Judge (Special Divison-II) to the Court of District Judge (East and North), gangtok. ( 3 ) AT the hearing, Mr. T. B. Thapa, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that the High Court of Sikkim under an administrative order being No. 374/judl/hcs dated 12th March 2003 as Annexure-P2 to the transfer petition made a general transfer of cases numbering eight including the present case, i. e. the Civil Suit No. 2 of 2003 (renumbered as Civil Suit No. 1 of 2003) initially from the Court of the District Judge (East and North), gangtok to the Court of District Judge (Special divison-I) for hearing and disposal. But the district Judge (Special Divison-I) was not inclined to hear/try the said Civil Suit No. 2 of 2003 (later on renumbered as Civil Suit No. 1 of 2003) as he had appeared against the defendant no. 2, Shri Sampat Lal Bucha, petitioner no. 2 herein before this Court in respect of the same subject matter and accordingly, by an administrative order bearing No. 32/judl/ hcs dated 17th April 2003, the case has been transferred to the Court of the District Judge (Special Division-II) and thereafter, the District judge (Special Division-II) took up the case and the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, i. e. the present petitioners filed their joint written statement in connection with the Civil Suit No. 1 of 2003 in the Court of the District Judge (Special Division-II)and apart from that, the application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for stay of the further proceedings of the suit was heard by the District Judge (Special division-II ). But the said petition under Section 10 of the Code of Civil, Procedure was rejected by the learned District Judge (Special division-II) vide order dated 29th May 2003 and the case was fixed on 16th June 2003 for framing of issues and filing of documents, but in the meantime, the defendants filed the present transfer petition without any justification. According to Mr. According to Mr. Thapa, learned x consel, the present transfer petition was filed by the petitioners/defendants for causing delay of the proceedings of the Civil Suit No. 1 of 2003 and, the Review Application No. 1 of 2002 has no relevancy with the present Civil suit No. l of 2003 and, the original Civil Suit no. 7 of 2001 was filed by one Shri Azey bhutiani as against the present petitioner No. 1 and another which has been withdrawn by the said plaintiff with a leave to file a fresh suit and against that the order of withdrawal dated 24th january 2002, the present petitioner No. 2 filed the said Review Application No. 1 of 2002. It was also argued by Mr. Thapa, learned counsel that the High Court in its administrative capacity has ample discretionary power to transfer the case from one Court to another competent Court to try the case in the light of the existing facts and circumstances of the case and any decree or order passed by the transferee court is executable as the same is valid in the eye of law. Mr. Thapa, learned counsel further argued that there is no sufficient material on record for transferring the said case from the Court of the District Judge (Special Division-II)to the Court of the District Judge (East and North), Gangtok at this stage and as such this present petition deserves to be rejected. ( 4 ) NOW this Court is to see and examine as to whether the prayer of the present petitioners for transferring the case from the Court of the District Judge (Special Divison-II) to the court of the District Judge (East and North), gangtok can be entertained/ allowed and whether the learned District Judge (Special division-II) is competent to try the suit or not. ( 5 ) IT is not disputed that in terms of the sikkim Interpretation of General Clauses Act, 1977, particularly provisions laid down under section 3 (12); Section 4 of the Gangtok Rent control and Eviction Act of 1956; related notifications dated 19th July 1994; 17 November 1973 and Office Order dated 12th March 2003, the Court of District Judge (East and north), Gangtok has territorial jurisdiction in the matter and is competent to try the suit. Now a question arises as to whether the district Judge (Special Division-II) is competent to try the said case or not; for which the provisions of Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is relevant and accordingly, it is quoted below:-"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 desired 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 proceeding 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) retransfer the same for trial or disposal to the Court from which it was withdrawn. (2) 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 retry it or proceed from the point at which it was transferred or withdrawn. (3) For the purposes of this section,- (a) Courts of Additional and Assistant judges shall be deemed to be subordinate to the District Court; (b) "proceeding" includes a proceeding for the execution of a decree or order. ] (4) The Court trying any suit transferred or withdrawn under this section from a court of Small Causes shall, for the purposes of such suit, be deemed to be a Court of Small Causes. [ (5) A suit or proceeding may be transferred under this section from a Court which has no jurisdiction to try it. ]" ( 6 ) A bare perusal of the available materials on record shows that initially there was a general transfer of 8 nos. [ (5) A suit or proceeding may be transferred under this section from a Court which has no jurisdiction to try it. ]" ( 6 ) A bare perusal of the available materials on record shows that initially there was a general transfer of 8 nos. of cases including the present civil suit from the Court of the District judge (East and North) to the Court of the district Judge (Special Division-I) vide Office order dated 12th March 2003 as in Annexure-P2 to the petition which is relevant and important for just determination of real points in controversy between the parties and accordingly, it is quoted below:-" HIGH COURT OF SIKK1m gangtok no. 374/judl/hcs dated 12/03/03 office ORDER the following cases are transferred from the Court of the District and Sessions judge (East and North) to the Court of the District and Sessions Judge (Special division-I) for hearing and disposal:-1. Civil Suit No. 30/02 D. B. Basnet vs. D. C. (East)2. Civil Suit No. 36/02 Pema wangyal Vs. C. B. Tamang 3. Civil Suit No. 2/03 Yangzila bhutia Vs. Nauratanmull 4. MAC No. 21/02 Mingma Sherpa vs. Ganga Bdr. 5. MAC No. 22/2 James Chettri Vs. NIC 6. MAC NO. 1/03 Bijay Sharma Vs. NIC MAC No. 2/03 Krishna M. Rai vs SNT MAC No. 3/03 Sarda Chettri Vs. NIC by order. Sd/-assistant Registrar (J)memo No. 4199-4500/judl/hcs dated 12/3/03 copy for information to: 1. The District and Sessions Judge, east and North Districts, Gangtok. 2. The District and Sessions Judge (Special Divison-I) Gangtok. Kindly acknowledge the receipt of the above case files from the Court of the Dandsj (E and N)sd/-assistant Registrar (J)" it may be noted that the validity of this Order is not challenged by the parties. The District and Sessions Judge, east and North Districts, Gangtok. 2. The District and Sessions Judge (Special Divison-I) Gangtok. Kindly acknowledge the receipt of the above case files from the Court of the Dandsj (E and N)sd/-assistant Registrar (J)" it may be noted that the validity of this Order is not challenged by the parties. However, the presiding Judge of the Court of the District judge (Special Divison-I) was not inclined to try the case as he was once conducting the case for and on behalf of the petitioner No. 2 herein (Defendant No. 2) before this Court in respect of the same subject matter and that being the position, the High Court by virtue of an Office Order dated 17th April 2003 as mentioned above transferred the case from the court of the District Judge (Special Division-I)to the Court of the District Judge (Special divison-II) and in the course of the proceedings, the defendants, the petitioners herein filed a joint written statement and even their application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil procedure before the Court below was rejected on 29th May 2003. The parties had no objection initially in transferring the case from the court of the District Judge (Special Division-I)to the Court of the District Judge (Special Division-II), but by virtue of this transfer application, the petitioners herein sought for transfer of the case on the ground that the Review application No. 1 of 2003 is pending in the court of the District Judge (East and North) and the cause of action and the subject matter involved in the said review petition is same with that of the subject matter of the Civil Suit No. 1 of 2003 and that being the position both the litigation/cases shah be heard by the same court, i. e. the Court of the District Judge (East and North), Gangtok. It is also not in dispute that the suit being Civil Suit No. 7 of 2001 filed by one Shri Azey Bhutiani has been withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh suit. In other words, the said suit was closed and the petitioner No. 2 filed an application for review of the order of withdrawal under Review Application No. 1 of 2002 which is now pending in the Court of the District Judge (East and North ). This is the factual position of the case/suit as on today. In other words, the said suit was closed and the petitioner No. 2 filed an application for review of the order of withdrawal under Review Application No. 1 of 2002 which is now pending in the Court of the District Judge (East and North ). This is the factual position of the case/suit as on today. ( 7 ) THE present Civil Suit No. l of 2003 was initially filed in the Court of the District judge (East and North), Gangtok by the plaintiff/opposite party herein and the said Court has territorial jurisdiction and competent to try the case, but because of changed circumstances as discussed above, the matter came up before the District Judge (Special Division-II) on transfer under the related administrative order of this Court. ( 8 ) IT is well settled that powers conferred upon the High Court under Section 24 of the code of Civil Procedure are wide and two folds, and the power of transfer is exercisable on the motion of parties or suo motu. While notice and hearing is mandatory, when power is exercised on the motion of one or the other of the parties to a proceeding, it is not so when pending suits or proceedings are transferred suo motu by the High Court, but the High court is to see and examine that the Court where the case is to be transferred is competent to try and dispose of the same. A bare perusal of the provisions of law laid down under section 24 (l) (a) of the Code of Civil procedure shows that any suit or appeal or other proceedings can be transferred by the high Court to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same (emphasis given ). This section does not speak about the territorial jurisdiction of the transferee court concerned, but it speaks about the competency of the transferee Court to try or dispose of the case. It may be noted that the high Court has power to transfer case from one Court to another subordinate Court competent to try the case even the transferee Court does not have territorial jurisdiction. But it is made clear that the transferee Court must be a Court competent to try or dispose of the case. It may be noted that the high Court has power to transfer case from one Court to another subordinate Court competent to try the case even the transferee Court does not have territorial jurisdiction. But it is made clear that the transferee Court must be a Court competent to try or dispose of the case. In the instant case also, the District Judge (Special Division-II) is competent to try the Civil suit No. l of 2003 and dispose of the same in accordance with the law. This Court found from the allegations so made by the petitioners that no reasonable ground is made out for transfer of the present case from the Court of the District judge (Special Division-II) to the Court of the District Judge (East and North), Gangtok. According to me, no prejudice shall be caused to the parties concerned if the case is tried and disposed of by the District Judge (Special division-II) and if any decree is passed by the said Court, it shall be executable unless it is interfered with by the superior Court on appeal or otherwise. The High Court while exercising the power of transfer of a case from one Subordinate Court to another Court subordinate to it should apply its judicial mind to the fact that whether the suit was filed and lawfully instituted in a Court of competent jurisdiction initially or not, and if the suit was properly istituted by the party and filed the same in the Court having competent jurisdiction, the power of transfer may be exercised where the circumstances permit to do so for the ends of justice and it should also be seen that the transferee Court is competent to try and dispose of the case. I have considered this matter pros and cons and am of the view that the District Judge (Special Division-II) is competent to try the said Civil Suit No. 1 of 2003 and dispose of it in accordance with the law. ( 9 ) THE case laws so far relied upon by the learned senior counsel for and on behalf of the petitioners do not support the case of the present petitioners inasmuch as the case of a R. Antulay v. R. S. Nayak and Anr. ( 9 ) THE case laws so far relied upon by the learned senior counsel for and on behalf of the petitioners do not support the case of the present petitioners inasmuch as the case of a R. Antulay v. R. S. Nayak and Anr. has no relevancy in the instant case, as the said case relates to the interpretation of certain provisions of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 particularly, Section 7 of the Act. ( 10 ) FOR the reasons, observations and discussions-made above, I am of the view that the petitioners could not make out a case for transferring the said Civil Suit No. 1 of 2003 from the Court of District Judge (Special. Division-II)to the Court of the District Judge (East and North), Gangtok. In the result, the petition is devoid of merit and accordingly, it is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) which shallbe paid by the petitioners to the opposite party/plaintiff on or before 25th July 2003. The Registry is directed to transmit the related lower Court's case record immediately and it is made clear that the learned District Judge (Special Division-II)shall dispose-of the case expeditiously in accordance with the law for which the party shall appear before the Court below, i. e. the Court of the District Judge (Special Division-II) on 25th July 2003 at 11. 00 A. M. and on that day the learned Court below shall pass necessary order in accordance with law. Earlier adinterim order dated 11th June 2003 stands vacated. Petition dismissed. --- *** ---