Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Tushar Rao Gedela, J.
Rahul Sharma – Appellant
Versus
The State, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Ors. – Respondents
CM(M) 724 of 2023
Decided On : 04-05-2023
Section 24 of the CPC, 1908 - Transfer of Case - Absence of Hearing - Unsustainability of Order
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged an order transferring a case without hearing them, under Section 24 of the CPC, 1908.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order was passed without hearing the petitioner, and concluded that it was unsustainable. The court set aside the impugned order and requested a re-hearing of the matter de novo after giving an opportunity to all parties concerned.
Issues: The issue was the transfer of the case under Section 24 of the CPC, 1908 without hearing the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that considering the petition/application under Section 24 of the CPC, 1908 without hearing one of the sides may not be appropriate, especially when the parties appeared to be at variance with each other and at loggerheads on issues.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for re-hearing after giving an opportunity to all parties concerned.
JUDGMENT
Tushar Rao Gedela, J. (Oral)
[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]
CM APPL. 22624/2023 (for exemption)
1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exemptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
CM(M) 724/2023 & CM APPL. 22625/2023 (for stay)
3. Petitioners challenges the order dated 19.04.2023 in M.No. 328/23 titled as "Sonal Garg vs. Rahul Sharma & Anr." whereby on an application under Section 24 of the CPC, 1908 filed by the respondent No.1, the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge had transferred the MCA SCJ No. 6/22 titled as "Sonal Garg vs, Rahul Sharma" after withdrawal from the Court of Sh. Himanshu Raman Singh, learned ASCJ, Shahdara Distirct, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi to the Court of Sh. Deepak Sherawat, learned SCJ, Shahdara Distirct, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi to be tried as per law.
4. With the assistance of the counsel, this Court has come to a conclusion that the said order was passed in the absence of and without hearing the petitioner on such transfer petition.
5. The consideration of the petition/application under Section 24 of the CPC, 1908, without hearing one of the sides may not be appropriate in the circumstances of the case for the reason that the parties appeared to be at variance with each other and at loggerheads on issues. In such situation, it would be prudent to permit all relevant parties to submit their arguments and consequent thereto, the Court ought to have passed the orders.
6. Having not heard the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order unsustainable and the present petition is fit for a remand.
7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 19.04.2023 is set aside and the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge is requested to re- hear the matter de novo after giving an opportunity to all the parties concerned and passing appropriate orders in accordance with law.
8. In view of the above, the present petition along with pending application is disposed of with no order as to costs.
9. At the request and consent of the parties, list before the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi on 11.05.2023.
The principle established is that the consideration of a petition/application under Section 24 of the CPC, 1908 without hearing one of the sides may not be appropriate, especially when the parties ar....
The court may permit the continuation of a case before a different judge despite finding that the application for transfer did not have the requisite grounds for interference, if it is in the interes....
The requirement of meaningful hearing under Section 24(1) of CPC is a statutory mandate before transferring suits, which must not be compromised.
The jurisdiction under Section 24 CPC is concurrent between the High Court and District Court, but a party cannot challenge a transfer order in both courts; they must choose one forum.
The jurisdiction under Section 24 CPC is concurrent between the High Court and District Court, but a party cannot challenge a transfer order in both courts; they must choose one forum for their remed....
The concurrent jurisdiction of the High Court and District Court under Section 24 CPC allows for transfer applications, but a party cannot challenge a transfer order in the same manner after one cour....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
