JITENDRA SINGH versus BHANU KUMAR & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 6 S.C.R. 377 · Decided: 11-04-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-- I 
[2008] 6 S.C.R. 377 
JITENDRA SINGH 
\I. 
BHANU KUMAR & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2786 of 2008) 
APRIL 11, 2008 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908- s. 24 - Transfer of cases 
-Application under s. 24 - Direction by High Court to transfer 
case from the Court of Additional District Judge A/war to the c 
Court of District Judge, Jaipur- Challenge to- Held: .Reasons 
which weighed with High Court to direct transfer did not make 
out a case for transfer- Court must act judiciously in ordering 
a transfer on the application - Thus, order of High Court set 
aside. 
D 
Respondent No. 1 filed application u/s 24 CPC 
seeking transfer of Civil Case pending before the District 
and Sessions Judge, Alwar, Rajasthan to some other 
Court. High Court directed that the suit be transferred from 
the Court of Additional District Judge Alwar to the Court E 
of District Judge, Jaipur City. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The purpose of Section 24 of the Code of 
Civil Procedure, 1908 CPC is merely to confer on the Court F 
a discretionary power. A court acting under Section 24 
CPC may or may not in its judicial discretion transfer a 
particular case. Section 24 does not prescribe any ground 
for ordering the transfer of a case. In certain cases it may 
be ordered suo motu and it may be done for administrative 
reasons. But when an application for transfer is made by G 
a party, the court is required to issue notice to the other 
side and hear the party before directing transfer. The Court 
must act judiciously in ordering a transfer on the 
application of a party. [Para 9] [381-G; 382-A, B] 
377 
H 
378 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2008] 6 S.C.R. 
A 
2. In the instant case, the grievance made by the 
respondents was that no competent lawyer at Alwar was 
willing to represent them. It is of significance to note that 
the suit has been filed by two persons. Respondents 2 & 
3 are represented by experienced lawyers and they have 
B been representing the respondents for very long period. 
In an earlier petition, Transfer Petition (Civil) No.1105 of 
2005 was disposed of with certain directions. The reasons 
which weighed with the High Court to direct transfer do 
not appear to be germane warranting an order of transfer. 
C It does not really make out a case for transfer. Thus, 
the order of High Court is set aside. [Paras 7, 8 and 9] 
[381-E, F, G; 382-B, C] 
D 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2786 
of 2008. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.11.2006 of the 
High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench in S.B. Civil Transfer 
Petition No. 41/2006 
Kailash Vasudev, Reshma Rea Sinha, S.C. Ghosh and 
E Parijat Sinha for the Appellant. 
F 
Shyam Divan, N. Sridharan, Hemant Sharma, Sunil Nath, 
Ajay Kumar, Richa Srivastava, lndu Sharma, S.S. Rana, Bindra 
Rana (for M/S. S.S. Rana & Co.,) K. Sunil, Pavan Kumar and 
LR. Singh for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is. to order passed by a learned 
Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench. 
G Respondent No. 1 had filed application in terms of Section 24 
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the 'CPC') 
seeking transfer of Civil Case No.41 /202/05 titled Jitendra Singh 
v. Smt. Bhanu Kumari & Ors. pending before the District and 
Sessions Judge, Alwar, Rajasthan to some other Court. By the 
H impugned order the High Court directed that the suit in question 
JITENDRA SINGH v. BHANU KUMAR & ORS. 
379 
.~· 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
to be transferred from the Court of Additional District Judge No.2 
A 
Alwar to the Court of District Judge, Jaipur City. 
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this is 
yet another attempt to deny the appellant of his legitimate 
entitlement. It is pointed out that in an earlier petition (Transfer 
B 
":::. i 
Petition (C) No.1105 of 2005 titled Maharaja Sewai Tej Singh v. 
Jitender Singh & Ors.) this court declined to accept the prayer 
for transfer. But keeping in view the age and the state of health 
of the petitioner in that case, directed appointment of a Guardian 
ad litem. It is pointed out that in fact as has been noted by the 
High Court, a learned counsel has been appointed as guardian c 
ad !item. It is the stand of the appellant that the reason which 
weighed with the High Court to direct transfer is really of no 
consequence, more pa
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.