Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.
Shri Jain Swetamwar Sangh Dhamotar – Appellant
Versus
Gajendra Singh S/o Shri Dayal Singh
S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 37 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 for transfer but cannot challenge a transfer order in the same manner after one court has ruled. The court concluded that the petitioners could not invoke Section 24 CPC to challenge the District Judge's order, as the appropriate remedy would be under Article 227 of the Constitution or 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, but the appellate court partially allowed the appeal, maintaining the status quo. The respondent then sought to transfer the case, claiming undue influence from the Jain community in Pratapgarh, leading to the District Judge's order to transfer the case to a different court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the transfer order was made without sufficient grounds and that the petitioners had the right to challenge the order. However, it ultimately ruled that the petitioners could not invoke Section 24 CPC to challenge the District Judge's decision, as the jurisdiction of the High Court and District Court under this section is concurrent.
Issues: Whether the petitioners could challenge the District Judge's transfer order under Section 24 CPC or if they were required to seek a remedy under Article 227 of the Constitution or Section 115 CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the jurisdiction under Section 24 CPC is concurrent between the High Court and District Court, allowing a party to approach either court for transfer. However, once a decision is made by one court, the other cannot be approached for the same relief without first exhausting the appropriate statutory remedies.
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.07/2024, whereby the learned Judge allowed the application of the respondent seeking transfer of Civil Suit No.34/2023, 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 Order 39 Rule 2A R/w Section 151 CPC with the averments that despite stay order dated 13.06.2023, the petitioners-defendants were raising constructions over the property in dispute. The petitioners-defendants filed a detailed reply to the said application.
3. When the matter was pending at the evidence stage, the respondent-plaintiff filed an application under Section 24 CPC seeking transfer of the civil suit No.34/2023, 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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 Etc. Etc. vs DAV College Managing Committee (2010 AIR SCW 6523), Babu Lal vs Rajendra Kumar reported in
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.
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
