S.24 CPC | Successful Transfer Petition Before District Court Cannot Be Challenged By Filing Another Transfer Petition In HC: Rajasthan HC

The bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Garg was hearing a transfer petition filed by the petitioner under Section 24, CPC, challenging the order of the district court that allowed the transfer petition filed by the opposite party.

The opposite party had filed a suit for a permanent injunction against the petition in relation to a land dispute. This injunction application was dismissed. Aggrieved of this, an appeal was filed before the lower appellate court which was partly allowed directing the petition to maintain a status quo and not raise any new construction on the land. When the matter was pending at the evidence stage, the opposite party filed a transfer petition which was allowed by the district court.

It was against this order that the current transfer petition was filed by the petition under Section 24, CPC challenging the order of the district court as illegal, unjust, capricious and against the well-settled canons of law.

A preliminary objection was raised by the opposite party against this petition contending that the transfer petition was not maintainable at all. It was held that the order of the district court on the transfer petition could not have been challenged by filing another transfer petition, rather a writ petition under Section 227 should have been preferred.

The Court, after reading Section 24, ruled that the Section was explicit about the concurrent jurisdiction of the high court and the district court. However, the question that arose was whether the concurrency was to the extent that once an application was allowed by one court, a second application to challenge that order could be maintained before the high court under the Section.

Agreeing with the arguments of the opposite side, the Court referred to a case of Allahabad High Court in Jagdish Kumar vs. The District Judge, Budaun and others in which it was observed that if a party seeking transfer was unsuccessful in the district court, it might approach the concurrent jurisdiction of the high court under the same Section 24. However, the party opposing a successful order could either apply for retransfer before the district court or could challenge the order under Article 227 of the Constitution but could not challenge the order under the same provision.

The Court also referred to the case of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs Ram Swaroop Bajaj which also made a similar observation.

“From perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is apparently clear that no power has been conferred on the High Court to set aside the order passed by the District Court on an application under Section 24 of C.P.C.”

Pursuant to this analysis, the Court opined that a person aggrieved by a favourable order passed by the district judge in a transfer petition under Section 24, CPC could not invoke the high court's jurisdiction under the Section to undo that order.

“Thus, in the light of aforesaid judicial precedents, this Court is of the opinion that the jurisdiction of the District Court and the High Court is concurrent under section 24 of the Code, so when a petition for transfer before the District Court fails, the party applying may approach the concurrent jurisdiction of the High Court, under the same provision but the party opposing would be precluded from approaching the High Court under section 24 of the C.P.C. to challenge the order passed by District Court.”

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

Title: Shri Jain Swetambar Sangh Dhamotar & Ors. v Gajendra Singh

Citation: 2024 Live Law (Raj) 171