1952 Supreme(Nagpur) 124
HIGH COURT OF NAGPUR
Sen
K L DAFTARY AND OTHERS – Appellant
Versus
K L DUBE AND OTHERS – Respondent
Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 53 of 1952
Decided on : 07-11-1952
A Shriniwasrao, G S Padhye, M B Padhye, N P Dwivedi, Advocates
The High Court has the power to transfer a suit even when there is a dispute regarding the jurisdiction of the Court where the suit is pending, and the trial of a suit can be transferred on the grounds of convenience and hardship to the defendants.
Headnote:
TRANSFER OF SUIT - JURISDICTION - DISPUTE - POWER OF HIGH COURT - CONVENIENCE - S. 24, CIVIL P. C. - Madhya Pradesh Homeopathic and Biochemic Practitioners Act, 1951.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff challenged the validity of the Board of Homeopathic and Biochemic systems of medicines created by the State Government under the provisions of S. 3, Madhya Pradesh Homeopathic and Biochemic Practitioners Act, 1951. Plaintiff sought transfer of the suit from Jabalpur to Nagpur on the grounds that two members of the Board were not eligible and that the trial at Jabalpur would cause inconvenience and hardship to the defendants.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the power of transfer vested in the High Court under S. 24, Civil P. C. is not fettered by any conditions and can be exercised even with respect to suits which can be entertained by one Court alone. The Court further held that the trial of the suit at Jabalpur would cause delay and put the defendants to considerable expense, and that it was in the interests of justice that the trial should be held in a Court at Nagpur.
Issues: 1. Whether the High Court has the power to transfer a suit even when there is a dispute regarding the jurisdiction of the Court where the suit is pending? 2. Whether the trial of the suit should be transferred from Jabalpur to Nagpur on the grounds of convenience and hardship to the defendants?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The power of transfer vested in the High Court under S. 24, Civil P. C. is not fettered by any conditions and can be exercised even with respect to suits which can be entertained by one Court alone. 2. The trial of the suit should be transferred from Jabalpur to Nagpur on the grounds of convenience and hardship to the defendants, as the Board whose validity is being challenged has its office and functions only in Nagpur.
Final Decision: The High Court directed that the case be transferred to the Court of the Civil Judge, Class II, Nagpur, under S. 24, Civil P. C.
Sen, J—This is an application under S. 24, Civil P. C, for transfer of civil suit No. 295-A of 1951 pending in the Court of the 2nd Civil Judge, Class II, Jabalpur, to a Court at Nagpur.
2. The suit was instituted on 26-12-1951 by Dr. K.L. Dube against Dr. K.L. Daftari and 12 others. The plaintiff challenges the validity of the Board of Homeopathic and Biochemic systems of medicines created by the State Government under the provisions of S. 3, Madhya Pradesh Homeopathic and Biochemic Practitioners Act, 1951. The defendants are members of that Board. The case of the plaintiff is that defendants Nos. 10 and 12 were not eligible to be members as they had not completed 10 years' practice. In paragraph 6 of the plaint, it is stated that the cause of action arose at Jabalpur within the jurisdiction of this Court on 14-12-1951 when for the first time the names of the defendants as members appointed of the said Board were published in M. P. Government Gazette.
The reliefs sought by the plaintiff are as follows:
1. The Board of Homeopathic and Biochemic System of Medicine of Madhya Pradesh as constituted at present is illegal and cannot function, or
2. That at least the defendants 10 and 12 are not entitled to sit and participate in the said Board.
3. The plaintiff made two applications on 20-3-1952 after the proceedings were stayed on 17-3-1952 by Choudhuri, J. The first application is under S. 20(b) of the Code and the second application is for amendment of the plaint under O. 6, R. 17, Civil P. C.
4. The application is opposed by the plaintiff. His learned Counsel Shri N.P. Dwivedi contends that the application is not tenable in view of the objection of the defendants that the Court at Jabalpur has no jurisdiction to try the suit. He relies on S. 20(b), Civil P. C, for his contention that the Jabalpur Court has jurisdiction. On the ground of convenience, also, he presses for the trial of the suit at Jabalpur.
5. The material provisions relating to the powers of the High Court regarding transfer of a suit are as follows:
Section 24(1)(a): On the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and after hearing such of them as desire to be heard, or of its own motion without such notice, the High Court...may, at any stage- transfer any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending before it for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same....
The power of transfer vested in the High Court is not fettered by any conditions. The terms of S. 24 of the Code are general. There is no bar to the exercise of power under S. 24 of the Code merely because there is a dispute on the question of jurisdiction. In - Narain Das Gopal Das v. (Firm) Khunni Lal Lachmi Narain, 1934 AIR(All) 569 (A), Iqbal Ahmad, J. (as he then was) held: The power of transfer vested in the High Court or the District Court by S. 24 is untrammelled by any conditions. Section 24 is general in its terms, and the power of transfer and withdrawal defined by that section can be exercised even with respect to suits which can be entertained by one Court alone; all that is necessary to bring into play the jurisdiction of the High Court or the District Court to exercise the power of transfer and withdrawal given under S. 24 is that the suit, appeal or other proceedings sought to be transferred should be 'pending before it' or 'pending in any Court subordinate to it'. The mere fact that the suit, appeal or other proceeding is pending in a Court not having jurisdiction to dispose of the same, cannot oust the jurisdiction of the High Court or the District Court to withdraw or transfer that suit, appeal or other proceeding from the Court in which it is pending to some other Court competent to try the same.
In - 'Badridas v. Gajadhar', Civil Revn. No. 280 of 1945, D/- 27-9-1946-Nag (B), Bose J. transferred a suit pending in the Akola Court to a Court at Wardha even though there was a dispute regarding the jurisdiction of the Akol