Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:29152 Court No. - 4 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1763 of 2025 Petitioner :- Vikash Singh Respondent :- Hotel Shivaay Private Limited Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Kumar,Ashish Kumar Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- Munna Tiwari,Satpal Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Abhishek Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anirudh Chaturvedi and Sri Munna Tiwari, learned Advocates for the respondents. 2. By means of this petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has questioned the order dated 10.01.2025 whereby his application to transfer the suit to the court of Small Causes has come to be rejected for the reason the U.P. Civil Laws Amendment Act, 2015 does not provide for automatic transfer of a case upon enhancement of valuation and since the suit was pending for the last 10 years, now at the stage of final hearing, petitioner could not be permitted to raise objection to question the jurisdiction of this court on pecuniary ground Mr. Abhishek Kumar has assailed the findings under the order impugned on the ground that the suit itself was dismissed in default on 07.10.2016 and the notification was made by circular issued on 05.02.2016, so there was no occasion for the petitioner to have raised such an objection or to have moved an application. He moved an application for restoration on 07.11.2016 which came to be finally allowed on 10.05.2022 and on the very first available opportunity petitioner moved an application for transfer on 03.11.2022. Therefore, the Court was not justified in holding that the petitioner ought to have raised this objection earlier. 3. He submits that when suit itself was in a state of dismissal, there was no such occasion to move any such application for transfer. 4. Per contra, it is argued by learned counsel for the respondent that the amendment was carried out namely U.P. Civil Laws Amendment Act on 07.12.2015 and, therefore, the petitioner could have moved application before the suit was dismissed in default. Sri Chaturvedi has further argued that that the petitioner had earlier moved a transfer application before the District Judge to get the case transferred to another court and when no order was passed, he came to move this application. It is thus sought to be urged that the petitioner somehow wants to delay the proceedings when it has arrived at the stage of final disposal. 5. Since petitioner has raised objection as to pecuniary jurisdiction of a Court to decide the case and the admitted fact is that while hearing had shorted in the case, Court had jurisdiction after it was transferred from the court of Judge, Small Causes to the present court having the pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit and now suit is to be finally decided, I do not find it appropriate to interfere with the proceedings at this stage. However, I leave this point open for consideration at the stage of revision if raised by any of the parties. 7. Subject to aforesaid liberty, this petition is consigned to records. Order Date :- 3.3.2025 Deepika Digitally signed by :- DEEPIKA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad