Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow.

A Project work undertaken in the partial fulfillment of B.A, LL.B Hons. (7th Semester) course of C.P.C -I at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow.

TOPIC: - Transfer of Suits

SUBMITTED SUBMITTED BY: Ms. Manish Rohilla

TO:

Shakuntala

Teaching B.A. LL.B (Hons) 7th SEM Roll No. 77

associate

TABLE OF CONTENTS

S. No. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Particulars INTRODUCTION Chapter 1: GROUNDS OF TRANSFER OF SUITS Chapter 2: NOTICE Chapter 3: SUBORDINATE COURTS Chapter 4 ORDER OF TRANSFER: WHEN TAKES EFFECT Chapter 5: SCOPE OF SECTION 25 Chapter 6: CONCLUSION

Page No. 1 2 7 11 17 21 27

INTRODUCTION

The section 24 gives a general power of transfer of all suits, appeals and other proceedings and is not limited like s 22 to suits in which the plaintiff has the option of suing in more than one court. It may be exercised at any stage of the proceeding and even suo moto without an application.1 Section 24 of the Code
1

Stthagiri Rao v. Somsundaramma, (1949) ILR Mad 94, AIR 1949 Mad 65; Allahabad Bank of Raja Ram, (1933) 14 Lah 779, AIR 1933 Lah 671.

deals with the general power of transfer and withdrawal of suits, appeals or other proceedings pending before the subordinate court to the High Court or district court for trial or disposal to any court subordinate to them and competent to try and dispose off the same, or withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in any court subordinate to them." 2 The High Court of Andhra Pradesh recommending the government to transfer some areas from jurisdiction of courts at another place for the reason the pendency in court at place from jurisdiction of which area was transferred was heavy and at place to which area was transferred was very low. The district judge recommending transfer of area in question at latter place for achieving equal distribution of work among courts. It was held that there was nothing arbitrary and illegal in the notification of the government. 3 Section 25 gives the power of the Supreme Court for the transfer of the suits.

CHAPTER 1 GROUNDS OF TRANSFER OF SUITS As stated in the notes on s 22, the plaintiff as arbiter Iitis or dominus Iitis has the right to choose any forum the law allows him"4 and it has been held thai it is a substantive right like a right of appeal.5 But it is subject to control under ss 22-24. The burden lies on the applicant to make out a strong case for a transfer. As mere balance of convenience in favor of proceedings in another court is not a sufficient ground6 though it is a relevant consideration.7 As a general rule, the court should not interfere unless the expenses and difficulties of the trial would be so great .is to lead to injustice or the suit has been filed in a particular court for the purpose of working injustice.8
2

Shamim Aahmed v. Egmore Benefits Society Ltd, AIR 1996 Mad 63 D. Awastha Reddy v. Government of Andra Pradesh, AIR 1998 AP 174 Sadayandi v. Venugopal, Supra

5 6
7

Ganapalhy v Comtnittiantr of Hindu Rtligimi) Endowmenti (1955) ILR Mad 870, AIR 1955 Mid 378. Re Norton's Sttlkmmt [1W)7] 1 Ch 407, 409, Madho Praiad v. Moitdund (1919) ILR 41 Al] 381.
TitiaRam v Harjiwan, |I8W] ILR 5 All 60; Re Norton's Settlement, 19071 1 Ch 407; Hindustan Cov Muhtj (1914) 27 M.i.l 45

Where the applicant was a practicing lawyer, who sought transfer at a place where she was practicing, objection was raised that she will have an influence at that place. No foundation was made out for the objection. Such objection cannot be entertained. No doubt, such discretionary powers cannot be put within the strait-jacket of cast-iron for all the situations. It is always for the court to find out from the allegations so made, whether any reasonable ground is made out for transfer of the case.9 Transfer of cases from one court to another is a serious nutter, because it indirectly casts doubt on the integrity or competence of the judge from whom the matter is transferred. This should not be done without a proper and sufficient cause. If there are good and sufficient reasons for transferring a case from one court to another, they must be clearly set out.

CONCLUSION
The section confers a general power to transfer, withdraw and transfer suits, appeals or other proceedings at any stage on the application of a party. The power of the High Court and District Judge are concurrent. The court may also exercise the power suo motu The section empowers the court to transfer a suit to itself and to retransfer it to the court where it was filed after passing an interim order. The High Court has power to transfer an appeal to itself suo motu though appeal lies to the District Court. An application for transfer under S. 24 is in the nature of an original proceeding within S. 141 An application for transfer is not an appeal from the District Judge's order. It should be self-contained and supported by an affidavit presented in the High Court When a suit on the Original Side is transferred to a civil court, ad valorem court fee is to be paid Where only certain issues were sent for decission to the civil court it does not amount to transfer of a case [On revision from an interlocutory order the High Court cannot try other issues and justify its action under S. 24 where it has not purported to withdraw the suit and try it. High Court can under S. 24 transfer from its file a divorce suit to a district court. S. 24 does not apply to divorce suitsWhere the applicant is guilty of suppressing material fact, e.g. rejection of transfer application earlier, petition for transfer shall be rejected A partyheard case cannot be transferred The Court has to weigh comparative convenience of both the parties.

The basic principle governing the granting of a petition under S. 24 of the C.P.C. is that the petition is not to be dealt with in a light-hearted manner and transfer of a case from one Court to another should not be granted readily for any fancied notion of the petitioning litigant because of the reason that such transfer of a case from one Judge to another in effect casts doubt on the integrity, competence and reputation of the concerned Judge. Unless and unitl a sufficiently cogent ground is disclosed transfer
9

Sudha Sharma v Ram Narrsfr Jursiuol AIR 1990 ME 320

should not be allowed as a matter of course. The Court from which the case is sought to be transferred must be shown to have disclosed a definitely unfair attitude or biased frame of mind against the petitioner and the petitioner must have some reasonable ground for apprehending that he or she may not get justice from that Presiding Officer if the trial of the case is. A change of court is not allowable merely because the other side too has no objection for such change.