The judgment establishes the principle that the jurisdiction of the High Court and the District Court under Section 24 of the C.P.C. is mutually exclusive, and in the absence of a specific provision in the C.P.C., a person cannot approach the High Court to get a case transferred after rejection by the District Judge, but may seek remedy through a writ petition.

Mohd. Tahir,J.

This transfer application has been moved by applicant Smt. Sunita Devi with the prayer that Original Suit No.1074 of 2004 (Ram Kripal versus Smt. Sunita Devi) may be transferred from the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Meerut to any other court in the same judgeship.

2. The factual matrix of the case, in nutshell, is this that the applicant is the defendant of the aforesaid suit no.1074 of 2004; that the suit was filed by the plaintiff/opposite party no.1 Ram Kripal for specific performance of contract; that when the suit came at the stage of arguments the defendantpplicant on 20.5.2014 filed transfer application before the District Judge mainly on the ground that the Presiding Officer concerned is in collusion with the plaintiff and she will not get justice from his court and that the said transfer application was rejected by the District Judge vide his order dated 10.7.2014 on the ground that the allegations levelled against the Presiding Officer concerned are false, baseless and concocted.

3. The defendantpplicant has moved this transfer application before the High Court on the self same ground. The Stamp Reporter marked his report on the transfer application as hereunder: -

Hon'ble Court

SR has to submit that this Transfer Application is not maintainable.

4. On 11.8.2014 Sri Vivek Kumar Singh and Sri Mayank Yadav, counsel for the applicant were present. Sri Rajendra Prasad Tiwari, Advocate had filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of private opposite party no.1 but on that date when the case was called out he did not respond even in revised list. So, heard learned counsel for the applicant on the point of maintainable of this transfer application and perused the record.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that after rejection of the transfer application by the District Judge the second transfer application on the same ground is maintainable in the High Court under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'C.P.C.') on the basis of the analogy of Section 438 and 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') because in those provisions the High Court and the Sessions Court have concurrent jurisdiction and if bail application is rejected by the Sessions Judge under Section 438 and 439 Cr.P.C., in that case another bail application on the same ground is maintainable in the High Court. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has cited the ruling of Full Bench decision of Calcutta High Court given in the case of Diptendu Nayek vs. State of West Bengal, 1988 Law Suit (Cal) 256.

6. I do not agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant because the said Full Bench decision relates to criminal law and in that case question of enlargement of right of accused as regards the anticipatory bail was involved. The granting or refusal of bail, whether pre-arrest or post-arrest, is inevitably linked up with the right of Personal Liberty and it is firmly established in criminal jurisprudence that if two views are possible in respect of a provision of law, one enlarging and the other circumscribing the right to protection of Personal Liberty, the view enlarging the right is to be preferred. So, the interpretation or construction adopted in aforesaid Full Bench decision cannot be adopted in interpreting the provisions of Section 24 of the C.P.C. because under Section 24 of the C.P.C. no right or liability of any party in regard to the lis, is decided. Whether the suit is tried by one court or the other is an administrative function for the sake of convenience with regard to a particular court. Whether the same is tried by one court or the other, is wholly immaterial to the parties as regards the adjudication of the controversy between them to be adjudicated in the suit itself. The transfer of the suit from one court to other has no concern with the subject-matter of the controversy between the parties.

7. For ready reference, Section 24 of the C.P.C. is r