Preserved original jurisdiction and transfer powers govern forum choice and transfer of pending suits to the City Civil Court.

Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not by itself oust the original civil jurisdiction of a Chartered High Court where that jurisdiction is preserved by the Letters Patent and the Madras City Civil Court Act. The special statutory scheme allows suits of the relevant class to be instituted on the High Court's original side despite concurrent pecuniary jurisdiction in the City Civil Court, and Order 7 Rule 10 does not control that forum choice. Pending suits within the enhanced pecuniary limit may be transferred to the City Civil Court under the transfer provisions if that court is competent on the date of transfer, including under Section 24(1) CPC.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure governed suits on the original side of Chartered High Courts so as to require institution in the City Civil Court when that court had concurrent pecuniary jurisdiction; (ii) whether suits instituted in the High Court before enhancement of the City Civil Court's pecuniary jurisdiction could be transferred to that court under Section 16 of the Madras City Civil Court Act or Section 24(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Issue (i): Whether Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure governed suits on the original side of Chartered High Courts so as to require institution in the City Civil Court when that court had concurrent pecuniary jurisdiction.

Analysis: The original civil jurisdiction of the High Court was preserved by the Letters Patent and by Section 16 of the Madras City Civil Court Act. Section 15 is a rule regulating the forum of institution and does not itself oust the jurisdiction of a superior court. The special scheme of the Letters Patent, the Madras City Civil Court Act, and the Small Cause Courts legislation showed that suits of the relevant class could be instituted on the original side of the High Court despite concurrent jurisdiction in the City Civil Court. The machinery of return of plaint in Order 7 Rule 10 was also not applicable to the original side in this context.

Conclusion: Section 15 did not govern Chartered High Courts in this situation, and the question was answered in the negative.

Issue (ii): Whether suits instituted in the High Court before enhancement of the City Civil Court's pecuniary jurisdiction could be transferred to that court under Section 16 of the Madras City Civil Court Act or Section 24(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Analysis: The enhanced jurisdiction under Section 3-A of the Madras City Civil Court Act operated once the notification took effect, and the transfer power under proviso (2) to Section 16 depended on the transferee court being competent at the time of transfer. The word 'arising' described the class of suits and was not confined to suits newly instituted after the notification. Since the City Civil Court had jurisdiction at the time of transfer, pending suits within the enhanced limit could be transferred, and the same result followed under Section 24(1) because the transferee court was subordinate and competent to try the suit on the date of transfer.

Conclusion: Such suits could be legally transferred to the City Civil Court, and the question was answered in the affirmative.

Final Conclusion: The reference was disposed of by holding that Section 15 did not compel institution in the City Civil Court, while pending suits below the enhanced limit but filed earlier in the High Court could be transferred to that court under the statutory transfer powers.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural venue provision does not override a preserved special original jurisdiction unless the later statute clearly does so, and a transfer to another court is valid if that court is competent on the date of transfer.

---