JUDGMENT :

[J.J. Munir, J.]

1. Heard Mr. Satish Kumar Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents via video conferencing.

2. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, seeking to set aside the order dated 26.10.2021 passed by the District Judge, Mainpuri in Transfer Application No. 85 of 2021, praying for a transfer of Civil Appeal No. 40 of 2016, Shivpal Singh and others v. Dafedar Singh, pending before the Ist Additional District Judge, Mainpuri to the Court of the District Judge. The appellants in the civil appeal pending before the District Court appear to be defendants of Suit No. 939 of 1996, decided by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mainpuri vide judgment and decree dated 20.10.2016. They are the petitioners here, whereas respondent Nos. 1 to 13 are the plaintiff-respondents to the present petition as well as the appeal before the District Court. The petitioners' application for transfer has been dismissed by the learned District Judge of Mainpuri vide order dated 26.10.2021.

3. Before this Court could examine the merits of the order passed by the District Judge dated 26.10.2021, refusing the petitioners' plea for transfer of the appeal, Mr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing for respondents took an objection that in view of the decision of this Court in Jaikaran Singh and others v. Balakram and others, 2020(4) ADJ 543, this petition is not maintainable. Instead, a transfer application would lie to this Court under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ''the Code'') after rejection of the petitioners' transfer application by the District Judge under the aforesaid provision.

4. Mr. Satish Kumar Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, has countered the objection as to the maintainability of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. He submits that once a transfer application under Section 24 of the Code is rejected by the District Judge, asking for transfer of a suit or appeal from one Court to another in the same judgeship, the only remedy is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution and not a transfer application made further to this Court under Section 24 of the Code. He has placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Smt. Sunita Devi v. Ram Kripal and another, 2014 ADJ Online 0366 and another decision of this Court in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. through its Principal Secretary v. Ram Swaroop Bajaj (deceased) through his legal heir Km. Aparna Bajaj, 2016(4) ADJ 724.

5. This Court has examined the matter, and there appears to be difference of opinion on the point between learned Single Judges of this Court. In Jaikaran Singh (supra), Siddharth Varma, J. held that against an order of the District Court declining a transfer application under Section 24 of the Code, a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution does not lie. The remedy of the unsuccessful applicant for transfer is to invoke the concurrent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 24 of the Code. His Lordship in Jaikaran Singh has opined :

10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that an Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India did not lie against an order passed under Section 24 of the CPC by the District Court. The High Court can always independently look into the grounds of a Transfer Application afresh. The jurisdiction conferred on both - the High Court and the District was concurrent and was independently available to both the Courts.

11. However, the parties should approach the District Court first and thereafter the High Court as judicial property demand that judicial hierarchy be maintained. It was, therefore, always in the interest of justice that the powers of the District Court be invoked initially and, thereafter, those of the High Court. Certainly an order passed on a Transfer Application does not bring to an e