Uttarakhand High Court
9 August vs Rajendra Singh Bisht & Others on 19 August, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:7277
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 2436 of 2025
19 August, 2025
Asha Rani Verma
--Petitioner
Versus
Rajendra Singh Bisht & others
--Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
By means of present writ petition, petitioner
has put to challenge the order dated 01.05.2025, passed
by learned District Judge, Dehradun in Civil Transfer
Application No.47 of 2025, Smt. Asha Rani Verma vs.
Rajendra Singh Bisht & others, whereby the application
moved by the petitioner for transfer of O.S. No.387 of
2017, Asha Rani Verma vs. Rajendra Singh Bisht, pending
before the court of learned 5th Additional Civil Judge (Jr.
Division), Dehradun to the court of learned Civil Judge
(Sr. Division), Dehradun has been rejected to that extent
and has been partly allowed by transferring the O.S.
No.167 of 2018, Arvind Kumar Oberoi & others vs.
Rajendra Singh Bisht to the court of Civil Judge (S.D.),
Dehradun.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the portion of the
judgment whereby the suit pending in the court of
learned 5th Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division),
Dehradun in O.S. No.387 of 2017 has not been
2025:UHC:7277
transferred.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the application filed by the petitioner for
transfer of the original suit ought to have been allowed in
toto by the learned District Judge, Dehradun, and that
the learned Judge has committed a manifest error of law
in rejecting the said transfer application. He further
contends that, under Section 24 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, the District Judge has full jurisdiction to
transfer a case from one subordinate court to any other
court.
4. This Court made a pointed query to the
learned counsel for the petitioner as to why O.S. No. 387
of 2017, Asha Rani Verma vs. Rajendra Singh Bisht,
pending before the Court of the learned 5th Additional
Civil Judge (Junior Division), has not been transferred to
the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division).
5. In response to the query put forth by this
Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Judge (Junior
Division) extends up to Rs.3 lakhs, whereas the
jurisdiction of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) begins
from Rs.3 lakhs and is unlimited. The other case sought
to be transferred by the petitioner have already been
transferred to the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior
Division) being O.S. No.167 of 2018. However, O.S. No.
387 of 2017, Asha Rani Verma vs. Rajendra Singh Bisht,
which is pending before the Court of the learned 5th
Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dehradun, has
not been transferred, keeping in view the specific
pecuniary jurisdiction vested in the Civil Judge (Senior
Division) i.e. Rs.3 lakhs to unlimited. The valuation of the
2025:UHC:7277
O.S. No.387 of 2017 is less than Rs.3 lakhs.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently
relied upon the provisions of Section 24(1) of the CPC
and submitted that the District Court may transfer any
suit pending before it for trial and disposal to any court
subordinate to it and to withdraw any suit pending in
any court subordinate to it and transfer the same for trial
to any court subordinate to it. He argued that the order
impugned in the present writ petition is patently illegal
as the District Judge had got power to transfer the
Original Suit No.387 of 2017, pending in the court of
learned 5th Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division),
Dehradun to the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Dehradun irrespective of the pecuniary
jurisdiction.
7. In order to appreciate the submission made by
learned counsel for the petitioner, an analysis of Section
24(1) CPC is needed, for which, Section 24(1) is quoted
hereinbelow:-
"24. General power of transfer and withdrawal.- (1) On the
application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and
after hearing such of them as desired to be heard, or of its own
motion, without such notice, the High Court or the District Court
may, at any stage-
(a)transfer any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending
before it for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it
and competent to try or dispose of the same; or
(b)withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in
any Court subordinate to it; and
(i)try or dispose of the same; or
(ii)transfer the same for trial or disposal to any
Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose
of the same; or
(iii) retransfer the same for trial or disposal to the
Court from which it was withdrawn."
8. From bare perusal of the provisions of Section
24(1) of CPC, it is unequivocally clear that a suit, appeal
or other proceeding can be transferred to any court
2025:UHC:7277
subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the
same and likewise can be withdrawn and be transferred
for trial to any court subordinate to it and competent to
try or dispose of the same. Since in view of the lack of
pecuniary jurisdiction, the Civil Judge (Senior Division)
was not competent to try and dispose of the same, the
learned District Judge has rightly rejected the prayer of
the petitioner to withdraw the Original Suit No.387 of
2017 from the court of learned 5th Additional Civil Judge
(Junior Division), Dehradun and to transfer it to the
court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun
9. Having perused the impugned order and
having considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff, this Court does not
find any ground to invoke its supervisory jurisdiction to
interfere in the matter. The learned District Judge was
right in saying in its judgment and order that a suit in
the court of Civil Judge (J.D.) cannot be transferred to
the court of Civil Judge (S.D.).
10. Accordingly, the present writ petition is
dismissed in-limine.
11. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
19.08.2025
AK
