JITENDRA SINGHversusBHANU KUMAR & ORS.

                             [2008] 6 S.C.R. 377


                            JITENDRA SINGH                               A
                                     \I.
                         BHANU KUMAR & ORS.
                     (Civil Appeal No. 2786 of 2008)
                              APRIL 11, 2008
                                                                         B
-- I       [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]

            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]
         CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2786
    of 2008.
D         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.
         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.
F         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
                Petition (C) No.1105 of 2005 titled Maharaja Sewai Tej Singh v.        B
":::. i
                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 particularly in view of what has been stated
                by this Court in the earlier Transfer Petition.
                                                                                       D
                      4. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand
                submitted that taking into consideration the serious nature of
                the allegations made the High Court has rightly directed transfer.
                     5. The High Court's conclusions based on the basis of
                which order of transfer has been made, read as follows:                E
                      "Having scanned the record, I noticed that the suit was
                      transferred by the District Judge to the Court of Additional
                      District Judge No.2, Alwar in the month of December, 2005.
                      The petitioner although filed instant petition in this Court
                      on August 17, 2006, did not mention this fact that the suit F
    "'                stood transferred from the Court of District Judge Alwar.
                      The Petitioner stated in para 3 of the petition that the
                      respondent Jitendra Pratap Singh is influential person and
                      MLA of Alwar City and he has created such a situation that
                      there is astrong likelihood of the matter pending before G
                      the District Judge being decided ex-parte against the
                      petitioner and other members. This apprehension of
                      petitioner, in my opinion, is baseless. The Courts are not
                      influenced by politicians and influential persons. The
                      petitioner should repose full confidence upon the court of H
    380        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2008) 6 S.C.R.


A         justice. If ex-parte order was passed by the learned District
          Judge and the petitioner was aggrieved by it, she ought
          to have assailed it legally. Passing of ex-parte order by
          the Presiding Officer of the court cannot be a reasonable
          ground for transferring the case.
B         But looking to the fact that on January 8, 2006 respondent
          Jitendra Singh lodged FIR No. 19 of 2006 with the Police
          Station Kotwali Alwar against the petitioner and
          respondents Amar Raj Pal and Jaswant Singh and case
          under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC has been
c         registered against them and considering the overall view
          of the nature of the case and convenience of the parties
          and in the interest of justice, it would be just and reasonable
          to direct transfer of suit from the court of Additional District
          Judge No. 2 Alwar to the Court of District Judge, Jaipur
D         City."
        6. It appears that the High Court referred to the fact that
  the criminal proceedings have been instituted against the
  appellant. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant
  that the filing of the FIR is really of no consequence. In respect
E of the plaint averments, in his reply before the High Court to the
  transfer petition it was inter alia stated as follows:
          "That the contents of sub para (xviii) are not admitted in
          the manner stated. The answering respondent lodged the
F         FIR (Annexure-9) on the facts constituting the offences
          unci8r different Sections of the Penal Code committed by
          the accused persons named therein. It is denied that the
          respondent No.1 filed the FIR to exert pressure on the
          petitioner and to pressurise the lawyer seeking to
          represent the petitioner. The allegations are baseless and
G
          wholly without substance. It is humbly submitted that the
          respondent No. 2 acted hand-in gloves with the petitioner
          Smt. Bhanu Kumari and her brother Yashwant Singh, got
          a purported power of attorney prepared in his favour and
          acting upon that the respondent No.2 negotiated for sale
H
              JITENDRA SINGH v. BHANU KUMAR & ORS.                  381
                      [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

               of the property of respondent No. 4 Maharaja Sawai Tej "A
               Singh Ji for a   consideration of Rs.77,30,328/-. The
               agreement entered into on 18.4.2005 besides being void
              was for inadequate consideration. The respondent No.2
               as attorney received the part payment of the consideration
               in cash and by cheque in his own name. The petitioner B
.... l
               and the respondent Nos. 2&3 to make wrongful gain
               colluded and connived with each other to make the
               respondent No.4 sign documents or papers who was a
               person under incapacity, incapable of understanding the
               contents. to which he was made to sign and/or that his     c
               signature was forged. The respondent No.2 Shri Amar
               Raj Lall, Advocate acted against professional ethics and
               involved himself in criminal conspiracy. True and correct
               copy of the power of attorney, agreement for sale dated
                18.4.2005 and the receipt dated 25.4.2005 are enclosed
    ..         herewith and marked asAnnexure'R-1/4, R-1/5 and R-1/
               6 respectively. A true and correct copy of the affidavit of
                                                                           D


               respondent No.2 Amar Raj Lall, filed in transfer petition
               before the Hon'ble Apex Court is filed herewith and marked
               asAnnexure R-1/7."
                                                                           E
               7. Though grievance is made by the respondents that no
         competent lawyer at Alwar is 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 been representing the respondents for very long F

    "'   period. The parameters for exercise in Sections 24 & 25 have
         been laid down by this Court in several cases. Earlier than
         Transfer Petition (Civil) No.1105 of 2005 was disposed of with
         certain directions.
               8. The reasons which weighed with the High Court to direct G
         transfer do not appear to be germane warranting an order of
         transfer.
              9. The purpose of Section 24 CPC is merely to confer on
         the Court a discretionary power. A court acting under Section
                                                                          H
    382       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2008] 6 S.C.R.


A 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 a party, the court
B is required to issue notice to the other side and hear the party
  before directing transfer. To put it differently, the Court must act   • ~
  judiciously in ordering a transfer on the application of a party. In
  the instant case the reason which has weighed with the High
  Court for directing transfer does not really make out a case for
C transfer.
        10. Accordingly the impugned order of the High Court is
   set aside.

          11. Appeal is allowed.
D N.J.                                              Appeal allowed.