Allahabad High Court
Shivpal Singh And 4 Others vs Dafedar Singh (Deceased) And 12 ... on 16 December, 2022
Bench: Rajesh Bindal, Chief Justice, J.J. Munir
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Chief Justice's Court
Serial Nos. 3019
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
***
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7532 of 2021
Shivpal Singh and others .... Petitioner
Through:- Mr. Kshitij Shailendra, Amicus Curiae
Vs.
Dafedar Singh (deceased) and others ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, JUDGE
ORDER
1. Vide order dated May 12, 2022, the learned Single Judge had referred the following question to be considered by a Larger Bench :
"Whether against an order made by the District Court, refusing a transfer application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 an application for transfer on the same grounds by the same party is maintainable before the High Court under Section 24 CPC?"
2. At the very outset, learned Amicus Curiae referred to a Division Bench judgment passed by this Court in Babu Singh and others vs. Raj Bahadur Singh and others1, to state that the question required to be considered has already been answered in the aforesaid judgment.
3. In Babu Singh ''s case (supra), the following questions have been considered by the Larger Bench :
(i) Whether the order passed by District judge under Section 24 CPC is revisable under Section 115 CPC as applicable in the State of U.P.?
(ii) Whether another application under Section 24 CPC by the same applicant based on the same cause would be maintainable before the High Court, without challenging an order of the District Judge which has also been passed under Section 24 CPC under Section 115 CPC or Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as the case may be?
(iii) Whether pronouncements of this Court in the case of Sunita Devi and Indian Oil Corporation (supra) lay down the law correctly on the subject matter in issue or it is the decision by a Co-ordinate Benches in the case of Jagdish Kumar and Amit Pachauri (supra) which understand and lay down the law correctly on the issues aforesaid?
4. The answers to the aforesaid referred questions given by the Larger Bench read as follows :
(i) The question is answered in the affirmative and it is held that an order passed by the District Judge under Section 24 CPC is revisable under Section 115 CPC as applicable in the State of U.P.
(ii) The question stands answered in the negative and it is held that another application under Section 24 CPC by the same applicant based on the same cause of action would not be maintainable before this Court without challenging the order passed by the District Judge, on the application disposed of by the District Judge under Section 24 CPC through a revision under Section 115 CPC. Normally, the order of the District Judge passed on an application under Section 24 CPC being revisable, the constitutional remedy under Article 227, though not barred, may not be invoked on the sound principle of the availability of an equally efficacious statutory alternative remedy under Section 115 CPC.
(iii) The question is answered by holding that the law laid down by this Court in Sunita Devi's case (supra) and Indian Oil Corporation's case (supra) lay down the law correctly on the subject-matter in issue and the decision in Jagdish Kumar's case (supra) and Amit Kumar Pachauri's (supra) do not lay down the correct law.
5. In view of judgment passed by this Court in Babu Singh's case (supra), in our view, the questions referred by the learned Single Judge, to be considered by a Larger Bench, stands answered.
6. Let the petition be now placed before the learned Single Judge for appropriate proceedings on January 10, 2023.
(J.J. Munir) (Rajesh Bindal)
Judge Chief Justice
Allahabad
16.12.2022
Manish Himwan
Whether the order is speaking : Yes
Whether the order is reportable : Yes/No
