JUDGMENT Anil Kumar,J. Heard Sri L.M. Khare, learned counsel for applicant and perused the record. 2. Facts in brief of the present case are that initially the applicant/ M/S G.S.Electronics filed a suit for mandatory injunction, registered as Regular Suit No. 912 of 2008, pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Kanpur in which the following persons have impleaded as defendant: - 1. Regional Manager, Electrolux, Harbilash Cold Storage, Faizabad Road, Lucknow. 2. General Manager, Videocon Industries, Ltd. (Electrolux Operationns), 309 Phase-4 Cybia internanationla Pvt. Ltd. 4th Floor Behind Bull Office opposite spice del office, Gurgaon, Haryana. 3. Subsequently, M/S Videocon Industries Ltd. filed a suit for recovery of money, registered as Regular Suit No. 1431of 2008 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Lucknow in which the defendant is M/S G.S.Electronics. 4. Sri L.M. Khare, learned counsel for applicant submits that the Regular Suit No. 1431 of 2008 has been filed by M/S Videocon Industries Ltd. afer it has put appearance in the suit filed by the applicant/ M/S G.S.Electronics for mandatory injunction, so keeping in view the said fact as well as the provisions as provided under Section 10 CPC, the subsequent suit which is filed by M/S Videocon Industries Ltd. (Regular Suit No. 1431 of 2008) may be transferred to Kanapur keeping in view the multiplicity of proceeding. 5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the records. 6. To decide the question, it may be necessary to advert to the legislative history of S. 24 of the Code. The first Code of Civil Procedure was Act 8 of 1859. The next Code of Civil Procedure was Act 10 of 1877 which repealed that of 1859. That was amended by Acts of 1878 and Act 12 of 1879. It was then superseded by the Code of Civil Procedure 1882 (Act 14 of 1882). That was amended from time to time between 1882 and 1895 and then superseded by the present Code. 7. Under S. 25 of Act 14 of 1882, the predecessor of S. 24 of the Code, the High Court and the District Court had been given power to transfer a suit pending in a subordinate Court to any other subordinate Court : "competent to try the same in respect of its nature and the amount or value of the subject-matter." 8. It would be clear from the language of the relevant part of S. 25 of Act 14 of 1882 extracted above, that the condition required to be satisfied for transfer of a suit pending in a subordinate Court to any other subordinate Court was that the transferee Court should have pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. 9. In S. 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (hereinafter referred to as C.P.C., the words "competent to try or dispose of the same." 10. In Black's Law Dictionary with Pro-nounciations, Fifth Edition, the expression "Competent Court" has been defined as "A Court either Civil or Criminal having lawful jurisdiction." 11. The word "jurisdiction" as is understood in legal parlance is a term of large and comprehensive import and would embrace every kind of judicial action. Broadly stated, it is the legal right, power or authority by which the Courts and Judges take cognizance of and decide cases. It means the extent of authority of a Court to administer justice not only with reference to the subject-matter of the suit, but also to the territorial and pecuniary limits of its jurisdiction. 12. The expression "competent to try or dispose of the same" appearing in S. 24(1)(b)(ii) CPC has reference to the jurisdiction of a Court within the meaning of the word just referred to. 13. As early as 1920, the question regarding the meaning of the word "competent" appearing in S. 24(1)(b)(ii) came up for consideration before the Patna High Court in Jannat Husain v. Gulam Kutubuddin Ahmad, AIR 1920 Pat 29. The learned Chief Justice (the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dawson Miller) formulated the question for determination as under "What is the meaning of the word "competent" in the section just referred to"? Answered the question as under : "In my opinion, the Court is not competent to try the suit unless it has jurisdiction to do so. The learned Chief Justice (the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dawson Miller) formulated the question for determination as under "What is the meaning of the word "competent" in the section just referred to"? Answered the question as under : "In my opinion, the Court is not competent to try the suit unless it has jurisdiction to do so. The jurisdiction of a Court depends not merely upon the nature or subject-matter of the suit but also, in the case of most subordinate Courts, upon the pecuniary value of the suit, and in the case of all upon the local limits of their jurisdiction." It has been further held that : "...The Courts to which the District Judge may transfer a case for trial under S. 24, Civil P.C., must be Courts competent to try the same, that is, Courts having jurisdiction to do so, and the mere fact that the District Judge transferred a case for trial from one Court subordinate to his jurisdiction to another similar Court does not confer jurisdiction upon the Court to which the case is transferred, unless it were competent originally to try the suit. I can find nothing either in the Civil Procedure Code or in Act 12 of 1887 which confers any such powers upon the District Judge....." 14. Under S. 25, Act 14 of 1882, the High Court and the District Court were given power to transfer a suit pending in a subordinate Court to any other subordinate Court "competent to try the same in respect of its nature and the amount or value of its subject-matter." 15. These words have been slightly altered, and in their place we now have in S. 24 the words "competent to try or dispose of the same." Under the old section there could be no doubt that all that was required of the subordinate Court to which the case was to be transferred was that it should have pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. The deletion of those words from the new section may prima facie suggest that the competence of the Court now required may be either pecuniary or territorial. If the words were to be taken literally, it might be open to argument that the word "competency" includes both pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction. The deletion of those words from the new section may prima facie suggest that the competence of the Court now required may be either pecuniary or territorial. If the words were to be taken literally, it might be open to argument that the word "competency" includes both pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction. Although the change in the words in the section was not emphasized, this view was certainly expressed by Patna High Court in the case of Jannat Hussain v. Ghulam Kutubuddin Ahmad, AIR 1920 Pat 29 and it has been held that the word "competent" was very wide and included both kinds of jurisdiction. 16. Further, the intention of the Legislature in incorporating the words "and competent to try or dispose of the same" is that the Court to which the suit, appeal or other proceeding could be transferred under S. 24(1)(b)(ii) of the Code must be competent to try or dispose of the case, in the sense that in addition to pecuniary jurisdiction, it should have territorial jurisdiction is amply made clear by omission of the words "competent to try the same in respect of its nature and amount or value of its subject-matter" that appeared in S. 25 (Act 14 of 1882) and insertion of the words "and competent to try or dispose of the same". If the intention of the Legislature was that the transfer can be made to a subordinate Court having pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit, the Legislature would have retained the words that appeared in S. 25 (Act 14 of 1882) without inserting the words "and competent to try or dispose of the same." Non-retention of the words coupled with insertion of new words, adverted to earlier, in S. 24 would prima facie suggest that the competence of the Court now required has to be both pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction. That would be the meaning of the expression "and competent to try and dispose of the same" appearing in S. 24(1)(b)(ii) of the Code if the literal construction is to be placed. 17. As the jurisdiction of a Court depends not merely upon the nature or subject-matter of the suit, but also upon the pecuniary value of the suit and the local limits of its jurisdiction. 17. As the jurisdiction of a Court depends not merely upon the nature or subject-matter of the suit, but also upon the pecuniary value of the suit and the local limits of its jurisdiction. The expression "jurisdiction" refers to the authority of a Court to dispense justice not only with reference to the subject-matter of the suit but also to the territorial and pecuniary limits of its jurisdiction. If the expression "competent to try or dispose of the case" appearing in S. 24(1)(b)(ii) of the Code is to be understood, adopting the rule of literal construction the golden rule for the interpretation, it would be clear that the general power of High Court or District Court under S. 24 to withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceeding in any Court subordinate to it and transfer the same for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it can be exercised by transferring a suit, appeal or other proceeding only to a Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same, that is having jurisdiction - having authority to try or dispose of the suit, appeal or other proceeding with reference to subject-matter of the suit, and territorial and pecuniary limits of its jurisdiction. 18. Indeed, Section 24 confers a very wide power on High Court and District Court and this conferment is intended to enable the two superior Courts in their general power of superintendence over subordinate Courts or in the interest of justice to redistributing of civil work of whatever nature pending in subordinate Courts for the purpose of disposal. The power can be used where the interests of justice require that a particular cause should not be tried in a particular subordinate Court and should be transferred from that Court and the word "competent" appearing in S. 24(1)(b)(ii) is to be interpreted as both including pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction, it may not nullify the power and render the section useless. 19. If the High Court or the District Court were to find that any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in any Court subordinate to it should be transferred and if it cannot be transferred for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it for want of competence to try or dispose of the same, it can try or dispose of the same itself under S. 24(1)(b)(i) of the Code. In this regard, it is also necessary to go through the process of Section 15 CPC provides as under: - " Every suit shall be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it. " 20. Section 15 is enacted not merely to avoid overcrowding in the higher Court but also for the convenience for the parties and witnesses who may be examined by them. The object of the section in requiring a suitor to bring his suit in the court of lowest grade competent to try it, is that courts of higher grades shall not be overcrowded with suits. This section is a rule of procedure, not of jurisdiction, and hilst it lays down that a suit shall be instituted in the court of the lowest grade, it does not oust the jurisdiction of the courts of higher grades which they possess uner the Acts constituting them. 21. In Mulla on the Code of Civil Procedure, 18th Edition, at page 336, dealing with the meaning of the word "competent" appearing in S. 15, the learned Author has observed : "Jurisdiction-- The word "competent" used in this section has reference to the jurisdiction of a Court. Jurisdiction means the extent of the authority of a Court to administer justice not only with reference to the subject-matter of the suit but also to the local and pecuniary limits of its jurisdiction. Thus, a Presidency Small Cause Court has no jurisdiction to try suits in which the amount or value of the subject-matter exceeds the prescribed monetary value; this is said to be the jurisdiction of a Court as regards its pecuniary limits. Nor can it try suits for specific performance of contracts or for an injunction or for a dissolution of partnership; this is said to be the jurisdiction of a Court as regards the subject-matter of a suit. Nor can it try a suit on a cause of action that has arisen beyond the local limits of the original civil jurisdiction of the High Court; this is said to be the local limits of its jurisdiction." 22. Nor can it try a suit on a cause of action that has arisen beyond the local limits of the original civil jurisdiction of the High Court; this is said to be the local limits of its jurisdiction." 22. In nut shell, it can be said that the High Court or the District Court, in exercise of the power and jurisdiction under S. 24 of the Code, may either on the application of the parties or ex debito justitiae, 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 and it can withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in any Court subordinate to it and try or dispose of the same or transfer the same for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same, and, following have been held to be sufficient grounds for transfer : (i) con-venience of parties and situation of property, (ii) bias of Judge hearing the case, (iii) two suits involving common question, (iv) avoidance of delay and unnecessary expenses, and (v) preventing abuse of process of the Court. 23. Keeping in view the abovesaid facts, the applicant cannot get any advantage/benefit of the provisions as provided under Section 10 CPC because the fundamental test to attract Section 10 is, whether on final decision being reached in the previous suit, such decision would operate as res-judicata in the subsequent suit. Section 10 applies only in cases where the whole of the subject matter in both the suits is identical. The key words in Section 10 are "the matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue" in the previous instituted suit. The words "directly and substantially in issue" are used in contra-distinction to the words "incidentally or collaterally in issue".(See. National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences Vs. C. Parameshwara, AIR 2005 SC 242 ). 24. For the foregoing reasons, present application under Section 24 CPC moved by the applicant lacks merit and is dismissed. 25. No order as to costs.