JUDGMENT 1. - The present transfer application has been filed by the applicant-defendant under Section 24 of CPC seeking transfer of the suit being No.80/2010 pending in the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Beawar to the Court at Jaipur. 2. It has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Ashwani Chobisa, for the applicant that the applicant is very aged person and is suffering from Hyper Tension, backache, COPD and has also taken treatment of tuberculosis, as per the certificate produced by him, and therefore, it is difficult for him to travel from Jaipur to Beawar on every date of hearing fixed by the Court at Beawar. As regards the jurisdiction of the Jaipur Court, he has submitted that Section 24 is very comprehensive provision and it should be interpreted in the manner beneficial to the concerned parties, which should serve the intention of the legislation. Mr. Chobisa, has relied upon the decision of this Court in case of Maliram Nemichand Jain, Jaipur v. Rajasthan Financial Corpn., Jaipur, 1974 RLW page 94 : AIR 1974 Raj 204 , to submit that the word "competent" occurring in Section 24 should be given wider meaning and that transfer to Court which does not have territorial jurisdiction would not by itself be illegal. However, the learned counsel Mr. Sandeep Maheswari, for the respondent has relied upon the decision of the Karnataka High Court in case of Syndicate Bank v. K. Gangadhar & Ors., AIR 1992 Karnataka page 163 , wherein it has been held interalia that the word "competent" occurring in Section 24(1) includes both pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction. He also submitted that the suit is pending at the evidence stage and the same should not be transferred as prayed for. 3. In order to appreciate the respective submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, it would be beneficial to reproduce the relevant part of Section 24(1)(a) of the CPC, which reads as under:- "Section 24. He also submitted that the suit is pending at the evidence stage and the same should not be transferred as prayed for. 3. In order to appreciate the respective submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, it would be beneficial to reproduce the relevant part of Section 24(1)(a) of the CPC, which reads as under:- "Section 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" 4. From the bare reading of the said Section, it appears that Section 24 pertains to the general power of the High Court to transfer and withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceedings pending before the court subordinate to it to the other court which is competent to try or dispose of the suit. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent, the High Court could transfer a suit of other proceedings only to the court, which is competent i.e. which has pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction as the case may be, to try or dispose of the same. The learned counsel Mr. Chobisa, for the applicant has failed to point out as to how the court at Jaipur would have any jurisdiction to try the suit pending at Court of Beawar. The decision of this Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant pertains to the transfer of the execution proceedings, which has no relevance to the facts of the present case, and therefore, not applicable. In that view of the matter, the Court is not inclined to transfer the suit as prayed for in the present transfer application, without considering the issue of hardship of the applicant. 5. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the transfer application deserves to be dismissed, and is accordingly dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******