Manjunath, J.

Petitioner herein has filed three suits. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.331/1996 and O.S.7251/1995 before the City Civil Judge, Bangalore. Subsequently, respondent Pushpa Makhija has also filed a suit for partition and separate possession in O.S. No. 1936/2003. O.S. No. 331/1996 was pending before CCH-6, O.S. No. 7251/ 1995 was pending before CCH-14 and the suit filed by the respondent Pushpa Makhija was pending before CCH-32. Plaintiff in O.S. 1936/ 2003 and defendants in O.S. 331/1996 and 7251/1995 filed three Misc. Petitions under Sec. 24 of CPC before the Prl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore in Misc. Nos. 510, 511 & 512/2004 requesting the Court to transfer all the suits to one Court and to try the same along with O.S.7251/1995. Misc. Petition filed under Sec. 24 of CPC before the Prl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore in Misc.No.510, 511 and 512/2004 requesting the Court to transfer all the suits to one Court and to try the same along with O.S.7251/1995. Misc. Petition filed under Sec. 24 of CPC was opposed by the petitioner herein. Still the Court has allowed the application on 9-8-2004 to withdraw O.S. 331/1996 and O.S. 1936/2003 and try along with O.S. 7251/1995. The order passed in the above three Misc. Petitions is called in question in this writ petition under Art.227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Heard the Counsel for the parties.

3. At the out set, Learned Counsel for the respondent contends that writ petition is not maintainable as the order passed by the Prl. City Civil Judge under Sec. 24 of CPC is an independent proceedings and it amounts to final order. Therefore, writ petition does not lie before this Court.

4. According to Mr. Lakshminarayana, Counsel for the petitioner, order passed by the Prl. City Civil Judge in withdrawing two suits and post along with another suit is nothing but an administrative order. Therefore, it cannot be considered as an independent proceedings and such an order has to be considered as an interlocutory order and that the writ would lie against the same. He alternatively contends that if the Court is of the opinion that the writ petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution is not maintainable and he maybe permitted to convert this writ petition into civil revision petition.

5. Having heard the Counsel for the parties, what is to be considered by this Court is that whether an order passed under Sec.24 of CPC is an independent proceedings and whether writ would lie against such an order.

6. Sec. 24 of CPC provides for general power of transfer and withdrawal of a case either by the High Court or by the District Court to transfer any suit, appeal or other proceedings pending before it for Trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and try or dispose of the same or to withdraw any suit or appeal or other proceedings pending in any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same transfer the same for Trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same or re-transfer the same for Trial or disposal to the Court from which it was withdrawn. Therefore, it is clear that it is a power to be exercised either by the High Court or by the District Court to transfer the suit or appeal from one Court to any other subordinate Court as envisaged under Sec. 24 of CPC. Sec. 24 of CPC cannot be pressed into service by any one of the parties to a suit or appeal before the same Court. It has to be exercised either by the High Court or by the District Court. Even if it is filed before the District Court, Court has got powers to transfer the case which is pending before it to any other Court which is competent to try and dispose of the same and similarly right is also given in the District Court to deal with the cases which are pending before the Courts subordinate to it. In the instant case, three suits are pending before the Addl. City Civil Judge. Addl. City Civil Judge cannot be considered as a subordinate Court to the Prl. City Civil Judge. Still the Prl. City Civil Judge has got power to withdraw and transfer to any other competent Court. If such a power is exercised by the District Court, it cannot be considered as an order passed on an interlocutory application. It is an independent right given to a particular Court though such suit or appeal pending before it and such an application will not be filed in the suit or appeal before the same Court. Even if such suit or appeal is pending before the District Court, petition under Sec.24 of CPC would be tried separately as an independent proceedings. If a decision is rendered by a Court independently, in an independent proceedings and if an order is passed under Sec.24 of CPC, such an order is not an appealable order to the High Court. Therefore, in such circumstances, Sec. 115 of CPC would come to the aid of the aggrieved persons or a party. If an order is passed under Sec. 24 of CPC since it cannot be considered as an order passed on an interlocutory application in a pending matter only a revision would lie under Sec. 115 of CPC and not a writ petition underArt.227 of the Constitution of India. This Court is of the opinion that petitioner cannot challenge the order passed under Sec.24 of CPC by the Prl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore, under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India and that petitioner can only invoke Sec. 115 of CPC.

7. In the result, these three writ petitions are not maintainable. In view of the request of the petitioners Counsel, he is permitted to convert these writ petitions into Civil Revision Petitions within two weeks from today. Granting such liberty, these petitions are closed.