Section 24 CPC Transfer to a Neutral Court with a 90‑Day Time-Bound Disposal Direction for Long-Pending Suits

1. Introduction

In Ayodhyapuri Rahwasi Kalyan Samiti Through Its Secretary Mr. M.k. Singh v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Collector Indore And Others (2026 MPHC-IND 23684), decided on 20-08-2026, the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench) considered a transfer request arising out of civil suit No. RCSA-1700005/2016 (pending since 2009, later renumbered in 2016).

The suit had been partly heard: arguments had progressed and written submissions were filed, but the matter experienced repeated adjournments and administrative transfers between courts, ultimately pending before the 32nd Additional District Judge, Indore.

The key issues before the High Court were:

  • Whether the case should be transferred under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) in the interests of justice;
  • How to address the parties’ expressed apprehension regarding certain courts; and
  • How to ensure expeditious disposal of a long-pending suit.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The High Court, after calling for and perusing the suit record, ordered that the matter be transferred to the Court of the 26th Additional District Judge, (Dr. Shubhra Singyh) Indore, and specifically directed that the case be transferred to a court other than those holding charge of the 31st & 32nd Additional District Courts, Indore.

Recognizing the suit’s age and partial hearing status, the Court directed the transferee court to give priority to the case, hear it day-to-day if required (or with short adjournments only when necessary), and to dispose of it as expeditiously as possible, but not later than 90 days from receipt of the High Court’s order.

The Court also recorded counsels’ assurance that parties would cooperate and not seek unnecessary adjournments, and held that in view of this transfer order, other transfer applications under Section 24 CPC need not be considered further. Respondent No. 4 expressed willingness not to press a pending application.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

The order does not cite any prior judicial precedents by name. The decision is anchored in the Court’s statutory power under Section 24 CPC and case-management considerations arising from the record (pendency since 2009, partial hearing, administrative transfers, and the parties’ apprehensions).

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning reflects a pragmatic balancing of three considerations commonly engaged in Section 24 CPC transfer decisions:

  • Continuity of hearing vs. overall justice: The Court noted it is “always advisable” to send the matter to the Presiding Officer who heard it earlier. However, it declined to do so due to “the totality of facts and circumstances” and “apprehension shown by the parties,” treating perceived fairness and confidence in adjudication as overriding practical convenience.
  • Neutral forum selection: Instead of returning the case to the earlier court(s) or leaving it with the then-current court, the High Court carved out an exclusion—not to be placed before courts holding charge of the 31st and 32nd ADJ courts—and transferred it to another court (26th ADJ), signalling that the “interest of justice” may require not only transfer, but transfer to a forum that removes the immediate source of apprehension.
  • Delay control through binding procedural directions: The Court treated long pendency (since 2009) as demanding priority and coupled the transfer with concrete case-management directions: priority listing, day-to-day hearing if required, and a 90-day outer limit for disposal. It also relied on counsels’ assurances to reduce adjournment-driven delay and framed cooperation as a “duty bound” obligation for parties.

Additionally, by observing that other transfer applications under Section 24 CPC “is not required to be considered any further,” the Court implicitly aimed to prevent parallel or repetitive transfer litigation from prolonging the suit.

3.3 Impact

This order is significant in its operational template for transfer relief in long-pending civil trials:

  • Time-bound disposal directions alongside transfer: It reinforces that a Section 24 CPC transfer order can be paired with robust scheduling directions, including an outer time limit (here, 90 days), especially when the suit is old and partly heard.
  • Addressing apprehension through targeted exclusion: The Court’s approach—excluding certain courts and selecting an alternative—signals that transfer jurisdiction can be used not merely to change venue, but to restore confidence in process when apprehension is pleaded.
  • Discouraging adjournment culture: Recording undertakings of cooperation and emphasizing minimal adjournments may influence future transfer orders to include similar “no unnecessary adjournment” expectations as part of effective case management.

For future litigants, the decision suggests that where the record demonstrates prolonged pendency, partial hearing, and procedural drift due to administrative transfers, the High Court may prefer a corrective transfer coupled with firm timelines rather than permitting the matter to continue in a cycle of adjournments.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Section 24 CPC: A provision empowering the High Court (and District Court) to transfer or withdraw civil proceedings from one court to another competent court to ensure fairness and the proper administration of justice.
  • Transfer vs. administrative posting: An administrative transfer often happens through internal roster/assignment orders; a judicial transfer under Section 24 CPC is a court order passed to protect justice, fairness, convenience, or confidence in adjudication.
  • Apprehension of a party: A stated concern (often about impartiality, fairness, or the conduct of proceedings). Courts evaluate whether addressing that concern is necessary in the “interest of justice.”
  • Day-to-day hearing / short adjournments: A case-management tool to prevent delay. The court may schedule continuous hearings or allow only brief postponements when strictly necessary.
  • Renumbering of a case: The case remains the same dispute but receives a new number due to administrative reclassification (e.g., change in registry system or court structure).

5. Conclusion

The High Court’s order crystallizes a practical principle in transfer jurisprudence under Section 24 CPC: in a long-pending, partially heard suit, where apprehension and repeated administrative shifts risk undermining progress, the Court may (i) transfer the matter to a neutral forum (even by excluding specific courts), and (ii) impose priority hearing with a strict, time-bound disposal direction (here, 90 days) to restore momentum and safeguard the larger interest of justice.