HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
R. S. Bachawat, P. Chatterjee
ANADI MOHON GHOSE - Appellant
Versus
RABINDRA NATH DUTTA - Respondent
A. F. A. D. 121 Of 1959
Decided On : JULY 20, 1961
TRANSFER OF CASES - POWER OF DISTRICT COURT - LIMITS - SECTION 24 C. P. C. - ORDER OF REMAND BY HIGH COURT - EFFECT - TRANSFER OF APPEAL TO DIFFERENT COURTS - COMPETENCY - CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908, SECTIONS 24, 41 RULE 25.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute between a landlord and tenant, where the landlord filed a suit for ejectment. The tenant appealed the decree of ejectment to the District Court, which transferred the appeal to an Additional District Judge. The Additional District Judge allowed the appeal and remanded the suit for a fresh decision. The High Court set aside the judgment of the lower Appellate Court and directed that the appeal be disposed of according to the procedure laid down in Order 41 Rule 25. The District Court transferred the appeal to another Additional District Judge, who remitted the issues to the Court of first instance for trial. The District Court then withdrew the appeal and transferred it to yet another Additional District Judge, who dismissed the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the District Court had the power to transfer the appeal to different Additional District Judges under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The order of remand by the High Court did not limit this power, as the expression "the lower appellate court" in the order included a Court to which the appeal was subsequently transferred. The court also held that the transfer of the appeal to different courts did not affect the merits of the case and was not a ground for reversing the decree appealed from.
Issues: 1. Whether the District Court had the power to transfer the appeal to different Additional District Judges under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, despite the order of remand by the High Court? 2. Whether the transfer of the appeal to different courts affected the merits of the case and was a ground for reversing the decree appealed from?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The power of the District Court to transfer a case under Section 24 C. P. C. 1908 is very wide. The Courts of the Additional Judges are deemed to be subordinate to the District Court. The District Court may at any stage transfer any appeal pending before it for disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to dispose of the same. 2. The order of remand passed by the High Court did not limit this power. The expression "the lower appellate court" in that order means the Court authorised to hear the appeal and includes a Court to which the appeal is subsequently transferred for disposal by an order of the District Court under Section 24 C. P. C. 3. The transfer of the appeal to different courts did not affect the merits of the case and was not a ground for reversing the decree appealed from.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the District Court had the power to transfer the appeal to different Additional District Judges and that the transfer did not affect the merits of the case.
( 1 ) THIS second appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment between landlord and tenant The appeal raises questions as to the limits of the power of transfer by the District Court under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The second appeal has been referred by the learned single Judge to the Division Bench for disposal.
( 2 ) ON September 4, 1953 Shri T. M. Mukherji, the First Additional Muinsif, Sealdah decreed the suit. On the 24th November, 1953, the tenant preferred from this decree Title Appeal No. 1176 of 1953 to the Court of the District Judge, 24-Paraganas. On the 24th May, 1954 the District Court transferred the appeal to the Court of Sri Mullinath Mukherjee, an Additional District Judge 2nd Special Court of 24-Paraganas. On the 28th May, 1954, Sri Mullinath Mukherjee allowed the appeal, set aside the decree for ejectment and remanded the suit to the Trial Count for a fresh decision after framing an issue on the question of the minority of the plaintiffs Nos. 4 and 5. On the Ist February, 1950, the High Court on second appeal set aside the judgmet of the lower Appellate Court and passed the following directions. "' (The) case (be) sent back on remand for disposing of the appeal according to the procedure laid down in Order 41 Rule 25. When the records reach the lower Appellate Court it should pass an order according to Order 41 Rule 25 and refer the issues set forth below to the Court of first instance and direct that Court to take additional evidence in regard to those issues. After the trial Court has tried the issues, the additional evidence together with the findings of the trial Court thereon will be returned to the lower appellate Court and then the latter Court will dispose of the appeal according to law. "the issues to be so remitted were set out in the order of remand. After receiving the records of the appeal from the High Court, the District Court passed an order dated the 27th March, 1956. transferring the appeal "to the Court of Shri G. S. Chatterjee, 1st Additional District Judge, as Shri M. N. Mukherjee has been transferred from the station. " By an order dated the 29th March 1956, Shri G. S. Chatterjee acting under Order 41 Rule 25 C. P. C. remitted the aforesaid issues to the Court of first instance for trial. On the 23rd June, 1958, the Court of the first instance, after faying the issues returned to the appellate Court the evidence together with its findings thereon. By an order dated the 25th June, 1958, the District Court withdrew the appeal to its own file and transferred the same to the Court of Shri Bijayesh Mukherjee, an Additional District Judge designated as the 4th extra. Court 24-Paraganas. On behalf of the tenants it was contended before the Court of Sri Bijoyesh Mukherjee that the District Court was not competent to pass the order of transfer dated the 27th March, 1956, and the 25th June, 1958 and that those orders and the subsequent proceedings are nullities. Sri Bijoyesh Mukherjee repelled this contention and dismissed the appeal. Before us in second appeal the tenants have again pressed that objection. In my opinion the objection is baseless.
( 3 ) THE power of the District Court to transfer a case under Section 24 C. P. C. 1908 is very wide. By Sub-section (3) of Section 24 the Courts of Additional Judges are deemed to be subordinate to the District Court. The Courts of the Additional Judges, Shri Mallinath Mukherjee, Shri G. S. Chatterjee and Sri Bijoyesh Mukherjee, were competent to dispose of the appeal and were subordinate to the District Court Under Sub-section (1) (a) of Section 24 the District Court may at any stage transfer any appeal pending before it for disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to dispose of the same. The order dated the 24th May, 1954, transferring the appeal to the Court of Shri Mallinath Mukherjee was therefor lawful. Under Sub-section (1) (b) of Section 24 the District Court may at any stage withdraw any appeal
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.