Section 24 CPC Offers Alternative Remedy, Not Successive Forums: Kerala HC

Parties cannot engage in forum shopping by filing successive transfer applications under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 before the District Court and then the High Court on identical grounds. The Kerala High Court has clarified that the jurisdiction conferred on these courts is concurrent and disjunctive, meaning the election of one forum exhausts the statutory remedy unless the initial order is legally set aside.

A Single Judge bench of Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. delivered this ruling while considering a transfer petition filed by a 74-year-old woman seeking to shift her appeal from the Additional District Court-III, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner alleged bias and oral observations by the Presiding Officer suggesting she should settle for a monetary sum instead of her decreed share in properties.

Exhaustion of Remedy Under Section 24 CPC

The Court emphasized that the statutory framework does not contemplate successive applications. The petitioner had previously moved the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram, via O.P.(T.P.) No.156/2024, which was dismissed on January 8, 2026. Instead of challenging that dismissal, the petitioner filed a fresh petition before the High Court seeking the same relief.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Section 24 CPC confers concurrent jurisdiction on 'the High Court or the District Court.' The word 'or' is disjunctive, not conjunctive  it signifies an alternative remedy, not a successive or concurrent one. Once a party elects a forum and invites an order on the merits, he exhausts his remedy under Section 24 CPC; he cannot approach the other forum for the same relief without first getting the earlier order set aside. Otherwise it would amount to forum shopping and successive applications, which the statute does not contemplate."

The Court relied on the precedent set in Ariamma Sachariah v. Rose Elizabeth Kurian to underscore that permitting such a course would lead to an abuse of the process of the court.

Background

The dispute originated from O.S.No.1001/2019, where the petitioner secured a preliminary decree for a 1/3rd share in properties. The respondents challenged this in A.S.No.236/2022. The petitioner sought a transfer of the appeal, alleging the Presiding Officer made prejudicial remarks in open court, including questioning her son a retired Army Jawan about instigating the litigation. The District Court had dismissed the initial transfer plea, finding the apprehensions of bias to be unreasonable and noting that judicial time had already been invested in hearing the matter in part. The High Court dismissed the current petition but granted the petitioner liberty to seek appropriate legal remedies against the original District Court order.

Case Details:
Case No.: TR.P(C) NO. 138 OF 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:75560
Case Title: P. Rajeswari Thankachy v. Anitha D.S & Anr.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Sri. Shahid Azeez, Shri. V.C. Anilkumar, Advocates
For the Respondent(s): Counsel appeared for respondents

Source: 2026 CaseBase(KER) 23809