1. Transfer petition under Section 24 CPC — Subsequent suit seeking cancellation of adoption deed pending before different court than earlier declaratory suit on same deed. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(All) 965
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
Preeti Mishra and another – Applicant
Versus
Vishnu Kant Tripathi and another – Opposite Party
Transfer Application (Civil) No. 900 of 2023
Decided On : 23-07-2026
Important Points
Under Section 24 CPC, the High Court may transfer a subsequent suit to the court where an earlier suit involving the same parties and subject matter is pending to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and the risk of conflicting decrees.
Subject
Civil Law - Procedural Law
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 24 - Discretionary power to transfer cases - Objective to advance the cause of justice by facilitating a fair, convenient, and effective adjudication of disputes - Aimed at preventing multiplicity of proceedings and avoiding inconsistent findings on common questions of fact and law (Paras 8, 9).
(B) Jurisdiction under Section 24 CPC - Equitable in nature - Not confined to cases of hardship or inconvenience - Enables Court to regulate judicial proceedings for an effective, efficient, and comprehensive adjudication of the controversy (Para 9).
(C) Transfer of subsequent suits - Where two suits involve substantially the same subject matter, identity of parties, and common issues, the court in which the earlier proceeding is pending is generally the more appropriate forum for the subsequent proceeding to ensure judicial consistency and procedural economy (Paras 10-13).
Facts of the case:
A registered adoption deed was executed between two parties. The applicants filed a suit in a court of competent jurisdiction seeking a declaration that the deed is legal, valid, and binding. Subsequently, the opposite parties filed a suit in a different court seeking the cancellation of the same adoption deed. The applicants sought the transfer of the latter suit to the court where the first suit was pending.
Findings of Court:
Both suits involve the same parties and arise from the same registered document. Since the validity of the adoption deed is the foundational issue in both, the evidence and questions for determination overlap significantly. Transferring the subsequently instituted suit will avoid the possibility of conflicting decrees and duplication of evidence.
Issues: Whether a suit seeking the cancellation of a document should be transferred to the court where a prior suit regarding the validity of the same document between the same parties is already pending.
Ratio Decidendi: The administration of justice requires that disputes arising from the same transaction or document, involving identical issues and parties, be adjudicated by the same court to promote consistency and avoid inconsistent decrees, especially when the earlier suit is already pending in a competent court.
Result: Transfer Application allowed.
(B) Jurisdiction under Section 24 CPC - Equitable in nature - Not confined to cases of hardship or inconvenience - Enables Court to regulate judicial proceedings for an effective, efficient, and comprehensive adjudication of the controversy (Para 9).
(C) Transfer of subsequent suits - Where two suits involve substantially the same subject matter, identity of parties, and common issues, the court in which the earlier proceeding is pending is generally the more appropriate forum for the subsequent proceeding to ensure judicial consistency and procedural economy (Paras 10-13).
Facts of the case:
A registered adoption deed was executed between two parties. The applicants filed a suit in a court of competent jurisdiction seeking a declaration that the deed is legal, valid, and binding. Subsequently, the opposite parties filed a suit in a different court seeking the cancellation of the same adoption deed. The applicants sought the transfer of the latter suit to the court where the first suit was pending.
Findings of Court:
Both suits involve the same parties and arise from the same registered document. Since the validity of the adoption deed is the foundational issue in both, the evidence and questions for determination overlap significantly. Transferring the subsequently instituted suit will avoid the possibility of conflicting decrees and duplication of evidence.
Issues: Whether a suit seeking the cancellation of a document should be transferred to the court where a prior suit regarding the validity of the same document between the same parties is already pending.
Ratio Decidendi: The administration of justice requires that disputes arising from the same transaction or document, involving identical issues and parties, be adjudicated by the same court to promote consistency and avoid inconsistent decrees, especially when the earlier suit is already pending in a competent court.
Result: Transfer Application allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Arvind Srivastava, Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Rajeev Tiwari
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Arvind Srivastava, Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Rajeev Tiwari
Table of Contents
2. Applicants sought transfer to consolidate related suits; opposite parties expressed no objection to the transfer. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
3. Both suits involve same parties, same adoption deed, and substantially identical issues; transfer to the court where earlier suit is pending avoids inconsistent decrees and promotes judicial efficiency. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 )
4. Under Section 24 CPC, transfer is justified when related suits raise substantially common issues; earlier court is ordinarily the more appropriate forum unless compelling circumstances exist. (Para 8 , 9 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 15 )
5. Transfer application allowed; suit pending at Kannauj withdrawn and transferred to competent court at Kanpur Nagar; record transmitted within fifteen days; transferee court to consider consolidating with earlier suit. (Para 16 , 17 )
6. What is the scope of discretion under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
The power is discretionary and intended to advance justice, considering whether transfer facilitates fair, convenient, and effective adjudication; not confined to hardship or inconvenience alone. (Para 8 , 9 )
7. When should a subsequently instituted suit be transferred to the court where an earlier suit is pending?
When both suits involve same parties, same document, and substantially identical issues, the earlier court is ordinarily the appropriate forum unless compelling circumstances indicate otherwise. (Para 10 , 11 , 13 , 15 )
8. Does consent of parties alone justify exercise of jurisdiction under Section 24 CPC?
No; the court must independently satisfy itself that the proposed transfer advances the ends of justice, even if both parties consent. (Para 14 )
9. What considerations are relevant to prevent inconsistent decrees?
Avoiding duplication of evidence and inconsistent findings on common issues; transfer ensures adjudication by same court, promoting consistency and procedural economy. (Para 11 , 12 )
JUDGMENT
HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Rajeev Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party.
2. Present application has been filed seeking transfer of O.S. No. 170 of 2023 (Vishnu Kant Tripathi and another Vs. Apurva Shukla and another), pending before the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kannauj, to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Kanpur Nagar.
3. It is submitted that a registered adoption deed dated 30.06.2022 was executed between the parties, whereunder the minor girl child was given in adoption to the applicants. It is stated that ever since the execution of the said deed, the applicants have been taking care of the adopted child and she has settled in their family.
4. It is further submitted that subsequently the respondents started exerting pressure upon the applicants for return of the minor child. In the aforesaid circumstances, the applicants instituted O.S. No. 2465 of 2022 before the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kanpur Nagar seeking a declaration that the adoption deed dated 30.06.2022 is legal, valid and binding upon the parties. The said suit is stated to be pending.
5. It is then urged that thereafter the respondents instituted O.S. No. 170 of 2023 before the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kannauj seeking cancellation of the very same adoption deed dated 30.06.2022. By means of the present application, the applicants seek transfer of the subsequent suit to Kanpur Nagar so that both proceedings involving the same parties and arising out of the same adoption deed may be adjudicated by the same Court.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties, on instructions, fairly states that the opposite parties have no objection if the suit pending at Kannauj is transferred to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Kanpur Nagar.
7. The Court has considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties.
8. The power conferred upon this Court under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19081 [CPC] is discretionary and is intended to advance the cause of justice. While exercising such jurisdiction, the paramount consideration is whether the proposed transfer would facilitate a fair, convenient and effective adjudication of the dispute. The provision is designed to secure the ends of justice by preventing multiplicity of proceedings, avoiding inconsistent findings on common questions of fact and law, and facilitating a consistent and effective adjudication of related disputes.
9. The jurisdiction under Section 24 CPC is equitable in nature and is to be exercised whenever the exigencies of justice so require. The provision is not confined to cases where hardship or inconvenience alone is established; it equally enables the Court to regulate the course of judicial proceedings in a manner that secures an effective, efficient and comprehensive adjudication of the controversy. The ultimate touchstone is whether the proposed transfer would better serve the administration of justice.
10. In the present case, it is not in dispute that both the suits are between the same parties and arise out of the same registered adoption deed dated 30.06.2022. While the earlier suit pending before the competent Court at Kanpur Nagar seeks a declaration regarding the validity and binding nature of the adoption deed, the subsequent suit instituted at Kannauj seeks cancellation of the very same document. The principal controversy in both proceedings is, therefore, substantially identical.
11. The validity of the adoption deed constitutes the foundational issue in both suits. Consequently, the evidence likely to be adduced and the questions requiring determination would substantially overlap. Any adjudication rendered in one proceeding is likely to have a direct and substantial bearing upon the issues arising in the other. If the proceedings are permitted to continue independently before different Courts, there exists a re
