CPC transfer jurisdiction applies to a Magistrate's civil reference; the proceeding lies before a constituted court, not a persona designata.

A reference by a Magistrate under Section 146(1) CrPC to a civil court of competent jurisdiction is a proceeding pending in a constituted court, not before a persona designata. The term "proceeding" in Section 24 CPC has wide scope and covers matters awaiting judicial adjudication beyond original suits and appeals. Because the reference attracts the general procedure of the CPC so far as applicable, the District Judge may transfer it under Section 24 CPC. The bar on appeal, review or revision in Section 146(1-D) does not change the character of the proceeding. The transferred reference was therefore validly dealt with under the CPC.

---

---

Issues: Whether a proceeding before a civil court on a reference made by a Magistrate under Section 146(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an "other proceeding" within Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure and is liable to transfer by the District Judge, and whether such reference is to a persona designata.

Analysis: Section 146(1) empowers a Magistrate to refer the question of possession to a civil court of competent jurisdiction, meaning a constituted court and not the presiding officer as an individual. The word "proceeding" in Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is of wide import and is not confined to original civil suits; it covers matters pending in court for judicial adjudication other than suits or appeals. A proceeding before the civil court on such a reference attracts the general procedure of the Civil Procedure Code so far as applicable, and the bar on appeal, review, or revision in Section 146(1-D) does not alter the character of the proceeding. The absence of an original civil suit does not exclude the matter from the scope of Section 24.

Conclusion: The reference was not to a persona designata, and the District Judge had jurisdiction under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure to transfer the proceeding.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the transferred reference remained a proceeding capable of being dealt with under the Civil Procedure Code, and the subsequent orders were upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A reference made under Section 146(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to a civil court of competent jurisdiction is a proceeding pending in court within Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the reference is to a constituted court, not a persona designata.

---