Allahabad HC: District Courts Can Transfer Suits Under Section 24(5) CPC

The Allahabad High Court has affirmed the plenary power of District Courts to transfer suits even from courts lacking inherent pecuniary jurisdiction, ruling that such a transfer is a valid statutory mechanism to cure jurisdictional defects without necessitating the return of the plaint. This significant clarification ensures that proceedings already underway are not rendered void merely due to initial filing errors, thereby preventing avoidable duplication of litigation and upholding substantive justice over procedural technicalities.

A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava was hearing a challenge to a District Judge's order that withdrew an eviction suit from a Small Causes Court and transferred it to an Additional District Judge after it was discovered the suit valuation exceeded the lower court's pecuniary limits. The petitioner contended that once a court is found to lack jurisdiction, the only permissible course is to return the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

The Interplay Between Section 24 and Order VII Rule 10

The Court examined whether a jurisdictional defect must lead to a mandatory return of the plaint or if the transfer power under Section 24(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides an alternative remedy. The Court noted that Section 24(5) specifically authorizes transfer "from a court which has no jurisdiction to try it," implying a legislative intent to preserve proceedings rather than restart them.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The Code does not treat every defect relating to pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction as fatal to the proceedings. Rather, the legislative scheme demonstrates an intention to preserve and continue proceedings before a competent forum wherever such course is legally permissible. It is in furtherance of this object that Section 24(5) expressly authorises transfer even from a court lacking jurisdiction. To hold that the plaint must invariably be returned notwithstanding the existence of such an express statutory power would not only render Section 24(5) largely redundant but would also compel avoidable duplication of proceedings, thereby defeating the object of expeditious adjudication."

Validity of Evidence Recorded Before Transfer

Addressing the petitioner's argument that evidence recorded by a court lacking jurisdiction is non est, the High Court pointed to Section 24(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This provision allows a transferee court to either retry the suit or proceed from the stage at which it was transferred, leaving the discretion to the trial judge.

The Court has the following directions:

"The petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed."

Key Takeaways:

Curing Jurisdictional Defects via Transfer

Section 24(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is a remedial provision that allows superior courts to cure a lack of jurisdiction in the subordinate court by transferring the case to a competent one.

Substantive Justice Over Procedural Form

Mandating the return of a plaint in every instance of jurisdictional error would elevate procedural technicalities over the core objective of efficient dispute resolution.

Discretion of Transferee Courts

Transferee courts retain the legal discretion to decide whether to conduct a de novo trial or continue from the current stage, ensuring flexibility in judicial proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi:

The power of transfer vested in the District Court under Section 24(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is a plenary power that is not overridden by the procedural mandate of Order VII Rule 10 for the return of a plaint. A transfer from a court lacking jurisdiction to a competent court is a valid statutory mechanism for curing jurisdictional defects, and proceedings conducted prior to such transfer are not automatically void.

Background:

The dispute involved a landlord-tenant relationship where the respondent-landlord filed S.C.C. Suit No. 69 of 2020 for eviction and rent recovery. After the evidence was concluded, it was discovered that the suit was valued at Rs. 1,06,806.45, exceeding the Rs. 1,00,000 pecuniary limit of the Small Causes Court, Meerut. The District Judge, acting on an application by the landlord, transferred the case to the Additional District Judge under Section 24(5). The tenant challenged this under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, arguing the suit should have been returned under Order VII Rule 10. The High Court, relying on its previous decision in Shiv Shankar v. Mahavir @ Ghura Turha and Others, upheld the transfer and dismissed the petition.

Case Details:
Case No.: MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7908 of 2026
Case Title: Ramesh Chand Sachdeva v. Alok Prakash
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Alka Srivastava, Santosh Kumar Srivastava, Syed Shahnawaz Shah
For the Respondent(s): Hemant Kumar

Source: 2026 CaseBase(ALL) 241