The Allahabad High Court has clarified that a transfer application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not maintainable when an effective alternative remedy exists under Section 115 CPC. This ruling reinforces the principle that procedural remedies must be exhausted in their prescribed hierarchy, preventing forum shopping and ensuring judicial efficiency.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Vijai Prakash, filed a Transfer Application (Civil) No. 128 of 2026 seeking quashing of an order dated 23.04.2026 passed by the District Judge, Ayodhya, in Civil Misc. (T.A.) Case No. 20 of 2026. The applicant also sought transfer of the underlying Regular Suit No. 426 of 2015, pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ayodhya, to another court of competent jurisdiction. The suit involved a property dispute between Smt. Sushila Devi and others, and the applicant was a party to the related proceedings.
Key Facts
- The original suit, Regular Suit No. 426 of 2015, was filed by Smt. Sushila Devi and another against Parvati and others.
- The applicant, Vijai Prakash, was not the original plaintiff but became involved in ancillary proceedings.
- On 23.04.2026, the District Judge, Ayodhya, passed an order in Civil Misc. (T.A.) Case No. 20 of 2026, rejecting the applicant’s request for transfer of the suit.
- The applicant challenged this order via the present Transfer Application under Section 24 CPC.
Procedural History
- 2015: Regular Suit No. 426 of 2015 filed before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ayodhya.
- 2026: Applicant filed Civil Misc. (T.A.) Case No. 20 of 2026 before the District Judge, Ayodhya, seeking transfer of the suit.
- 23.04.2026: District Judge dismissed the transfer request.
- 09.07.2026: Transfer Application (Civil) No. 128 of 2026 filed before the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, seeking quashing of the District Judge’s order and direct transfer of the suit.
- 09.07.2026: Hearing conducted before Hon’ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, J.
The Parties' Positions
For the Applicant
The applicant contended that the suit was being improperly handled in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ayodhya, and sought transfer on grounds of alleged bias, procedural irregularity, and convenience. He argued that Section 24 CPC empowered the High Court to transfer suits in the interest of justice.
For the Respondent
The opposite party, through counsel, raised a preliminary objection on maintainability, relying on the binding precedent of Babu Singh and others v. Ram Bahadur Singh and others (2022 SCC OnLine All 2680), which held that orders under Section 24 CPC are revisable under Section 115 CPC in Uttar Pradesh.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought:
- Quashing of the District Judge’s order dated 23.04.2026
- Transfer of Regular Suit No. 426 of 2015 to another court of competent jurisdiction
- Costs of the application
The Legal Issue
Whether a Transfer Application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is maintainable before the High Court when an alternative remedy of revision under Section 115 CPC is available to the aggrieved party.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The applicant’s counsel argued that Section 24 CPC confers plenary power on the High Court to transfer suits in the interest of justice, and that this power is not contingent on the absence of other remedies. He contended that the nature of the dispute, involving complex property rights and potential prejudice, warranted direct intervention by the High Court. He cited general principles of equity and the discretionary nature of Section 24 to support maintainability.
For the Respondent/State
The respondent’s counsel relied on the binding decision of the Division Bench in Babu Singh v. Ram Bahadur Singh (2022 SCC OnLine All 2680), which held that orders passed by District Judges under Section 24 CPC are revisable under Section 115 CPC in Uttar Pradesh. He emphasized that Section 115 CPC provides a specific, statutory remedy to challenge such orders, and that bypassing it through a direct transfer application undermines the hierarchy of remedies. He further argued that allowing such applications would lead to multiplicity of proceedings and forum shopping.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of remedies under Sections 24 and 115 CPC and the binding precedent of Babu Singh v. Ram Bahadur Singh. It noted that Section 24 CPC allows the High Court to transfer suits suo motu or on application, but does not create an independent, exclusive remedy. The Court emphasized that Section 115 CPC, which permits revision of orders that are illegal or suffer from material irregularity, is the prescribed remedy for challenging orders passed under Section 24.
"The order passed by the District Judge under Section 24 CPC is revisable under Section 115 CPC as applicable in the State of U.P."
The Court held that the principle of exhaustion of alternative remedies is a well-established doctrine in civil procedure. Where a specific statutory remedy exists, the High Court will not entertain a direct application under Section 24 CPC, even if the applicant claims hardship or prejudice. The Court observed that the applicant’s grievance, if any, could be ventilated through revision under Section 115 CPC, which provides adequate opportunity to challenge the legality and propriety of the District Judge’s order.
The Court further clarified that the dismissal of the transfer application does not extinguish the applicant’s right to seek revision under Section 115 CPC. The judgment in Babu Singh was applied as binding precedent, and the Court declined to entertain the application on grounds of maintainability.
The Verdict
The Transfer Application was dismissed as not maintainable. The Court held that the applicant’s remedy lies under Section 115 CPC, and that no independent jurisdiction under Section 24 CPC can be invoked to bypass this statutory revisional mechanism. The registry was directed to return the certified copy of the impugned order dated 23.04.2026 to the applicant, without prejudice to his right to file a revision petition under Section 115 CPC.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Alternative Remedies Must Be Exhausted First
- Practitioners must first file a revision petition under Section 115 CPC before approaching the High Court under Section 24 CPC for transfer of suits
- Direct applications under Section 24 CPC will be summarily dismissed if a revisional remedy is available
- Courts will not entertain transfer applications as a substitute for revision
Section 24 CPC Is Not a General Remedy for All Grievances
- Section 24 CPC is not a catch-all provision for challenging adverse orders
- The power to transfer must be exercised sparingly and only where no other remedy exists
- Applications under Section 24 CPC must clearly demonstrate absence of any statutory alternative
Procedural Hierarchy Is Non-Negotiable
- The Code of Civil Procedure establishes a clear hierarchy of remedies
- Ignoring revisional remedies to seek direct intervention invites dismissal
- Courts will not entertain procedural shortcuts that undermine statutory frameworks
