“11. During the course of hearing of the appeal, the counsel for the appellant/plaintiff contended that the appellant will be caused grave prejudice if the order returning the plaint is sustained in as much as considerable evidence has already been recorded in the suit and, there was also an order of injunction against the respondents/defendants by the consent of the counsel for the parties. Taking into account the considerable time invested by this court in this suit, we have decided to suo moto exercise our powers under Section 24(1) read with Section 24(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and instead of the order returning the plaint as passed by the learned Single Judge, we modify the order of the learned Single Judge and direct that, in the facts of the case, the suit itself be transferred to the competent court of civil jurisdiction. The effect of exercising of powers under Section 24 CPC would mean that the suit would be taken up by the transferee court from the stage at which it was pending before the impugned order dated 16.2.2009 was passed. The learned counsel for the respondents has stated that the respondents wanted to move an application for vacation of the interim order of injunction, but, which he did not do in as much as the matter was heard on the aspect of the lack of pecuniary jurisdiction of the court. Therefore, while directing the transfer of the suit, we further order that the interim order of injunction operating against the respondent in the suit will continue only till the date when the matter is taken up on the first date by the concerned Civil Judge. The Civil Judge will decide afresh the issue of grant or denial of an ad interim/ex-parte injunction on the first date and he will also decide expeditiously, and preferably within four weeks from the first hearing, the injunction application as filed by the plaintiff in the suit. The learned Single Judge should take up the issue of granting or denying of injunction (ex parte/ad interim or pendent lite) entirely uninfluenced by the any observations of this court or the fact that earlier an injunction order was passed by the consent of the parties.”
