ARVEE INDUSTRIES & ORS. versus RATAN LAL SHARMA

Citation: [1978] 1 S.C.R. 418 · Decided: 13-09-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.K. GOSWAMI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
418 
ARVEE JNDUSTRIES & ORS. 
v. 
RATAN LAL SHARMA 
September 13, 1977 
[P. K. GOSWAMI AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.J 
Civil Procedure Code (Act V of 
1908), as amended 
witl1 
effect /rem 
1-2-1977 by s. 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment Act No. 104 
of 1976), 1976-Powers of the S11pre111e Court to transfer suirs-Section 25, 
scope of. 
The petitioners, who reside and carry on business in Delhi, filed suit No. 
262/1974 for perpetual injunction against the landlord's (Respondent's son) 
interfering with their quiet and peaceful possession of their tenanted premises. 
The suit, having been dismissed for default, the respondent made an application 
u/s. 95 r/w s. 151 C.P.C. claiming Rs. 3000/- as compensat;on from the peti-
tioners for malicious prosecution of the civil suit. 
Since the written 
state-
ment filed in the said application by the petitioners was 
stated 
to contain 
several serious defamatory allegations against the respondent whereby he was 
lo\vered in public esteem and reputation, the respondent instituted suit No. 690 
of 1975 on the original s;de of the Calcutta High Court after obtaining ex parte 
leave under clause ( 12) of the Letters Patent for the Calcutta 
High 
Court 
claiming Rs. 2,00,000/~ as damages from the petitioners. 
In the transfer petition, the petitioners contended (i) it is a clear case of 
harassment of the petitioners in order to drag them to the Calcutta High Court 
where the respondent had not to pay any court fee in instituting such a suit 
for libel; (ii) Defendants reside and carry on business in Delhi and it will be 
a great hardship to defend such a suit by them in Calcutta; and (iii) there is 
no pri1na facie justification to institute a suit in Calcutta and there is a clear 
lack of territorial jurisdiction as the publication of libel was in 
Delhi even 
according to the pleadings. 
Allowini the petition, the Court, 
HELD :(1) Section 25, Civil Procedure Code, in terms confers a new 
power on this Court which was earlier in the old section with the State Govern~ 
ment. 
Section 25 C.P.C. provides that this Court, if satisfied that an order 
under the section is expedient for the ends of justice, may transfer any case 
from one High Court to another or from a civil court in one State to a civil 
court in another State. [420 H, 421 A] 
(2) This Court is the highest Court of appeal under the Constitution from 
all the High Courts in India. 
All High C:ourts in India within the meaning of 
Art. 366(14) of the Constitution r/w s. 3(25) of the General 
Clauses Act 
stand on the same footing so far as the Supreme Court is concerned and there 
is no basis for the submission that the suit cannot be transferred u/s. 25, C.P.C. 
from the original side of the chartered High Court to the Delhi High Court 
0r that this Court has no jurisdiction to (;ntcrtnin such a transfer application. 
[420 H, 421 A-DJ 
~ ( 3) It cannot be said that if a particular suit is ex facie instituted delibe-
rately in a wrong Court it will not have any bearing whatsoever on the question 
of transfer. The Cou-rt may bear it as an additional factor if there is prilna 
facie, on the pleadings sufficient justification for such a plea. [421 F] 
( 4) The fact that the plaiJitiff will be greatly handicapped in several ways 
in being deprived of the procedure extant in Calcutta High Court is not an 
impediment u/s 25(5) C.P.C. in the matter of entertainment of the petition of 
transfer by this Court. [422 Ill 
(5) \-\'hat is expedient for the ends of justice u/s. 25 C.P.C. will have to 
be judged upon the totality of facts and circumstances in a g_iven case. The 
- I 
...... ' 
.. 
c 
• 
--~~--
----~' -- -_ .. 
J .. 
,., 
', 
,'< •\ARVEE l~USTRIES , •• R. L. SHARMA (Goswami.!.) 
419_ 
-:__ ______ -----
instant case i~ a fit,.. orie \\here it is expedient for the ends ~f Justice to trans~c:r 
A 
suit No. 609 of 1975 on the original side of the Calcutta High Court to the 
Delhi High Court. 
Having an overall view of the case, the -relationship bet-
"'·een the parties, the nature of· the suit as well as the circumstances in \vhich 
the snit has been filed in the Calcutta High Cour-4 great hardship 
will be 
caused to the petitioners in defending .such a.suit in Calcutta. 
Convenience 
of the parties for a smooth and speedy trial will be more in Delhi. Since the 
cause ef action has arisen out of the civil proceedings instituted by the respon-
dents in the Delhi Court, it v.·itl add to the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.