V. Ramasubramanian, J.

Brief facts leading to the transfer petitions

1. The unsuccessful plaintiffs in two different suits on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Narsapur of West Godavari District, who had filed regular appeals under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code), which are pending on the file of VI Additional Fast Track Court at Narsapur of West Godavari District, have come up with the present transfer petitions seeking transfer of the appeals from the VI Additional Fast Track Court, Narsapur to any other Court only on the specious plea that the VI Additional Fast Track Court Judge had dismissed 45 appeals in a span of three days without taking up final hearing in a proper manner and that therefore, there is a reasonable apprehension in the minds of the petitioners herein that they may not get justice from the VI Additional Fast Track Court, Narsapur.

2. As a matter of fact, the transfer petitions are completely devoid of merits and were liable to be thrown out without much ado, on the short ground that the dismissal of 45 appeals in a span of three days can hardly give rise to an apprehension of the nature pleaded by the petitioners. But, when these transfer petitions were posted before a learned Judge, the learned counsel for the respondents took exception to the maintainability of the transfer petitions on the file of this Court, on the ground that the transfer petitions ought to have been filed on the file of Principal District Judge, under Section 24 (1) of the Code. But the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Manchukonda Venkata Jagannadham v. Chettipalli Bullamma (AIR 2011 AP 104) to the effect that the District Court has no power to transfer a case pending on the file of one Additional District Judge to the file of another District Judge. The respondents relied upon the decision of another learned Judge in T. Niranjan v. Ch. Ramesh Chander Reddy (2013 (3) ALT 150), wherein it was held that in view of the express language of Section 24 (3) (a) of the Code, the ratio decidendi in Manchukonda Venkata Jagannadham v. Chettipalli Bullamma was incorrect.

3. Finding that there was a conflict of opinions between 2 Benches of co-ordinate jurisdiction, the learned single Judge before whom the present transfer petitions came up for hearing has referred the matter to the Division Bench.

Order of Reference

4. The operative portion of the order of the learned Judge, by which these petitions stand referred to us, reads as follows:

In the light of conflicting decisions of this Court in Manchukonda Venkata Jagannadhams case (1 supra) and in T. Niranjas case (2 supra), the point that is to be answered is whether the District Court has jurisdiction to exercise power under Section 24 to withdraw and transfer any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending on the file of one Additional District Court to another Additional District Court or from/or to the District Court.

8. Article 141 of the Constitution of India stipulates that law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all Courts within the territory of India. But as regard the application of precedents of the High Court there is no direct constitutional provision as Article 141. But a three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in M/S. EAST INDIA COMMERCIAL COMPNAY LIMITED, CALCUTTA vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA (AIR 1962 SC 1893) at para 14 held thus:

It is implicit in the power of supervision conferred on a superior tribunal that all the tribunals subject to its supervision should conform to the law laid down by it. Such obedience would also be conducive to their smooth working: otherwise, there would be confusion in the administration of law and respect for law would irretrievably suffer. We, therefore, hold that the law declared by the highest court in the State is binding on authorities or tribunals under its superintendence.

9. There is no dispute and there cannot be any dis