HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 2436 of 2025

19 August, 2025

Asha Rani Verma

--Petitioner

Versus

Rajendra Singh Bisht & others

--Respondents

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

By means of present writ petition, petitioner

has put to challenge the order dated 01.05.2025, passed by learned District Judge, Dehradun in Civil Transfer Application No.47 of 2025, Smt. Asha Rani Verma vs. Rajendra Singh Bisht & others, whereby the application moved by the petitioner for transfer of O.S. No.387 of 2017, Asha Rani Verma vs. Rajendra Singh Bisht, pending before the court of learned 5th Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Dehradun to the court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Dehradun has been rejected to that extent and has been partly allowed by transferring the O.S. No.167 of 2018, Arvind Kumar Oberoi & others vs. Rajendra Singh Bisht to the court of Civil Judge (S.D.),

Dehradun.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the portion of the judgment whereby the suit pending in the court of learned 5^th Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Dehradun in O.S. No.387 of 2017 has not been

transferred.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the application filed by the petitioner for transfer of the original suit ought to have been allowed in toto by the learned District Judge, Dehradun, and that the learned Judge has committed a manifest error of law in rejecting the said transfer application. He further contends that, under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the District Judge has full jurisdiction to transfer a case from one subordinate court to any other court.

4. This Court made a pointed query to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to why O.S. No. 387 of 2017, Asha Rani Verma vs. Rajendra Singh Bisht, pending before the Court of the learned 5th Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), has not been transferred to the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division).

5. In response to the query put forth by this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) extends up to Rs.3 lakhs, whereas the jurisdiction of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) begins from Rs.3 lakhs and is unlimited. The other case sought to be transferred by the petitioner have already been transferred to the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) being O.S. No.167 of 2018. However, O.S. No. 387 of 2017, Asha Rani Verma vs. Rajendra Singh Bisht, which is pending before the Court of the learned 5th Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dehradun, has not been transferred, keeping in view the specific pecuniary jurisdiction vested in the Civil Judge (Senior Division) i.e. Rs.3 lakhs to unlimited. The valuation of the O.S. No.387 of 2017 is less than Rs.3 lakhs.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently relied upon the provisions of Section 24(1) of the CPC and submitted that the District Court may transfer any suit pending before it for trial and disposal to any court subordinate to it and to withdraw any suit pending in any court subordinate to it and transfer the same for trial to any court subordinate to it. He argued that the order impugned in the present writ petition is patently illegal as the District Judge had got power to transfer the Original Suit No.387 of 2017, pending in the court of learned 5^th Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dehradun to the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun irrespective of the pecuniary jurisdiction.

7. In order to appreciate the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, an analysis of Section 24(1) CPC is needed, for which, Section 24(1) is quoted hereinbelow:-

“24. General power of transfer and withdrawal.- (1) On the application of any of the parties and after