- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Jitendra Singh v. Bhanu Kumari And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
Respondent 1 filed an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking transfer of Civil Case No. 41/202 of 2005 (Jitendra Singh v. Bhanu Kumari) from the Court of the IInd Additional District Judge, Alwar, Rajasthan, to another court. A learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, ordered the suit to be transferred to the Court of the District Judge, Jaipur City. The appellant challenged this transfer order before the Supreme Court of India. Leave to appeal was granted, and the present judgment resolves that challenge.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court correctly exercised its discretion under Section 24 CPC in ordering the transfer of the civil suit from Alwar to Jaipur.
- Whether the existence of a criminal FIR against the appellant and allegations of influence constituted sufficient grounds for transfer.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The transfer application was another attempt to deny the appellant his legitimate entitlement.
- An earlier Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 1105 of 2005 (Maharaja Sawai Tej Singh v. Jitender Singh) had already been dismissed by the Supreme Court, which instead appointed a guardian ad litem; hence, the High Court’s contrary order was unwarranted.
- The FIR relied upon by the High Court was irrelevant to the civil proceedings and could not justify transfer.
- Experienced counsel were already representing the respondents in Alwar, negating claims of unavailability of representation.
Respondent's Arguments
- The High Court rightly considered the “serious nature of allegations” and the pending criminal FIR under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC when ordering transfer.
- No competent lawyer in Alwar was willing to represent them, necessitating transfer for a fair hearing.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Maharaja Sawai Tej Singh v. Jitender Singh (2007) 14 SCC 765 | Supreme Court’s earlier refusal to transfer the same underlying dispute; appointment of a guardian ad litem instead. | The Court noted that the earlier refusal undermined the High Court’s reasoning, as the circumstances had not materially changed. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court emphasized that Section 24 CPC confers discretionary power on a court to transfer cases, but such discretion must be exercised judicially and only on cogent grounds. It observed:
- The High Court itself had dismissed apprehensions of political influence as “baseless.”
- The sole additional factor relied upon—the registration of FIR No. 19 of 2006—did not establish any prejudice in the civil proceedings or demonstrate an inability of the Alwar court to render justice.
- Established parameters under Sections 24 and 25 CPC, reaffirmed in several Supreme Court cases, require a substantive justification for transfer; mere administrative convenience or unsubstantiated fears are insufficient.
- The respondents were already represented by experienced counsel in Alwar, contradicting claims of lack of legal representation.
Consequently, the reasons that “weighed with the High Court” were found “not germane” to warrant transfer.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The Supreme Court set aside the impugned transfer order of the Rajasthan High Court; the appeal was allowed.
Implications: The civil suit remains before the IInd Additional District Judge, Alwar. No broader legal precedent was established; the decision primarily reaffirms that transfer under Section 24 CPC requires compelling, case-specific reasons.
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.— Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench. Respondent 1 had filed application in terms of Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short “CPC”) seeking transfer of Civil Case No. 41/202 of 2005 titled Jitendra Singh v. Bhanu Kumari pending before the District and Sessions Judge, Alwar, Rajasthan to some other court. By the impugned order the High Court directed that the suit in question to be transferred from the Court of IInd Additional District Judge, 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 Sawai Tej Singh v. Jitender Singh (2007) 14 SCC 765] 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 ad litem. 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.
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 the transfer.
5. The High Court's conclusions based on the basis of which order of transfer has been made, read as follows:
“Having scanned the record, I noticed that the suit was transferred by the District Judge to the Court of IInd Additional District Judge, Alwar in the month of December 2005. The petitioner although filed instant petition in this Court on 17-8-2006, did not mention this fact that the suit 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 a strong likelihood of the matter pending before the District Judge being decided ex parte against the petitioner and other members. This apprehension of the 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 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.
But looking to the fact that on 8-1-2006 respondent Jitendra Singh lodged FIR No. 19 of 2006 with Police Station Kotwali, Alwar against the petitioner and respondents Amar Raj Lall and Jaswant Singh and case under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC has been 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 IInd Additional District Judge, Alwar to the Court of District Judge, Jaipur 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 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 FIR (Annexure 9) on the facts constituting the offences under different sections of the Penal Code committed by the accused persons named therein. It is denied that Respondent 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 wholly without substance. It is humbly submitted that Respondent 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 Respondent 2 negotiated for sale of the property of Respondent 4, Maharaja Sawai Tej 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. Respondent 2 as attorney received the part-payment of the consideration in cash and by cheque in his own name. The petitioner and Respondents 2 and 3 to make wrongful gain colluded and connived with each other to make Respondent 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 signature was forged. Respondent 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 as Annexures R-1/4, R-1/5 and R-1/6 respectively. A true and correct copy of the affidavit of Respondent 2 Amar Raj Lall, filed in transfer petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court is filed herewith and marked as Annexure R-1/7.”
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 and 3 are represented by experienced lawyers and they have been representing the respondents for very long period. The parameters for exercise under Sections 24 and 25 have been laid down by this Court in several cases. Earlier Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 1105 of 2005 was disposed of with certain directions.
8. The reasons which weighed with the High Court to direct 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 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 is required to issue notice to the other side and hear the party before directing transfer. To put it differently, the court must act judicially 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 transfer.
10. Accordingly the impugned order of the High Court is set aside.
11. Appeal is allowed.
Alert