Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.
Jain Swetamwar Sangh Dhamotar – Petitioner
Versus
Gajendra S/o Shri Dayal Singh – Respondent
S.B. Civil Transfer Application No. 38 of 2024
Decided On : 22-07-2024
TRANSFER - CIVIL PROCEDURE - Section 24 CPC - The court discussed Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which grants the High Court and District Court the power to transfer suits. The court interpreted the concurrent jurisdiction of these courts, emphasizing that a party can approach either court but cannot challenge a transfer order in both. The court concluded that the petitioners could not invoke Section 24 CPC after the District Judge's decision, reinforcing the principle of judicial hierarchy and the availability of alternative remedies under Section 115 CPC.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioners-defendants, alleging encroachment on his land. The trial court dismissed the injunction application, leading to an appeal that resulted in a partial allowance. The respondent then sought to transfer the case, citing concerns about the influence of the Jain community in Pratapgarh. The District Judge granted the transfer, prompting the petitioners to challenge this order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the transfer order was valid and that the petitioners could not challenge it under Section 24 CPC after the District Judge's ruling. The court emphasized the concurrent jurisdiction of the High Court and District Court but clarified that once a party approaches one court, they cannot seek the same relief from the other.
Issues: Whether the petitioners could challenge the District Judge's transfer order under Section 24 CPC after it had been granted, and the interpretation of concurrent jurisdiction between the High Court and District Court under this section.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the jurisdiction under Section 24 CPC is concurrent, allowing parties to approach either the High Court or District Court. However, once a party has sought relief from one court, they cannot seek the same relief from the other court. The court also noted that the appropriate remedy for the petitioners would be under Section 115 CPC, not Section 24 CPC.
Final Decision: The transfer petition was dismissed, with the petitioners granted liberty to seek appropriate statutory remedies under the law.
JUDGMENT :
MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.
1. The instant transfer application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 02.02.2024, passed by the learned District Judge, Pratapgarh in Civil Misc. Case No. 06/2024, whereby the learned Judge allowed the application of the respondent seeking transfer of Civil Suit No. 21/2023, pending before the Court of Civil Judge, Pratapgarh and transferred the said case to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Chhoti Sadari.
2. The facts in brief are that respondent-plaintiff instituted a suit for permanent injunction in mandatory form against the petitioners-defendants with the averment that the petitioners-defendants encroached upon his land. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC was also filed seeking grant of injunction during the pendency of the suit. The petitioners-defendants filed a detailed reply to the injunction application. The learned Trial Court vide order dated 31.05.2023 dismissed the injunction application holding that the petitioners-defendants are in possession of the property in dispute. Being aggrieved by the order dated 31.05.2023, the respondent filed an appeal before lower appellate court, which was allowed in part directing the petitioners not to raise any new construction over the property in dispute. Subsequently, the respondent-plaintiff filed an application under Section 24 CPC seeking transfer of the civil suit No. 21/2023, pending before the Court of Civil Judge, Pratapgarh to any other jurisdictional court, on the ground that the matter pertains to encroachments made by Jain community and the said community has a great influence in Pratapgarh City and by using its influence, they can interfere in the judicial proceedings also. The petitioners-defendants denied the allegations raised in the transfer petition and prayed for its dismissal.
3. After hearing both the parties, the learned District Court vide order dated 02.02.2024 transferred the civil suit to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Chhoti Sadari. Hence, this transfer petition on behalf of the petitioner-defendants challenging the order dated 02.02.2024.
4. Counsel for the petitioners-defendants submits that the order dated 02.02.2024 passed by the trial court transferring the suit to Chhoti Sadari is illegal, unjust, capricious and against the well settled cannons of law. Counsel submits that the application filed by the respondent under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC for granting injunction has already been dismissed, against which an appeal was preferred by the respondent before the District Judge, Pratapgarh, which was partly allowed directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the property in dispute. Against the order dated 06.07.2023, the petitioners and respondent have filed writ petitions before this Court, which are pending.
5. Counsel further submits that the learned trial court has passed the order dated 02.02.2024 without looking into the false and vague allegations made in the transfer petition against a particular community of having influence on the judicial proceedings. The conduct of the respondent is nothing, but an attempt to lower down the esteem of the judiciary and is contemptuous. Thus, it is prayed that the impugned order may be quashed and set aside. To buttress his contentions, counsel has relied upon the judgments, Kulwinder Kaur alias Kulwinder Gurcharan Singh vs. Kandi Friends Education Trust & Ors. 2008 AIR SCW 748, D.A.V. Boys Sr. Sec. School vs. DAV College Managaing Committee, 2010 AIR SCW 6523, Babu Lal vs. Rajendra Kumar, (2001) DNJ 564, J. Kumaradasan Nair and Another vs. Iric Sohan and Others, (2009) AIR (SC) 1333, Darshan Singh vs. Ghewarchand and Others, (1993) 2 ACC 69, Abraham Thomas Puthooran vs. Manju Abraham and Anr. decided on 23.09.2021, Mahesh Prasad Sen vs. Dhanulal Namdeo decided on 23.11.2023.
6. Per contra, counsel for the respondent-plaintiff has filed reply to the transfer peti
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....
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.
Principal District Judge would have the power to withdraw a suit, appeal or other proceeding pending on the file of one Additional District Judge and transfer the same to the file of another District....
The court has the power to transfer cases from one court to another subordinate court under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the interest of justice.
Point of law: In matters relating to transfer of a case from one district to another, it is to be noticed that if the case is pending before a Court which is within the specified area of Oudh only in....
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
