http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  2786 of 2008

PETITIONER: Jitendra Singh

RESPONDENT: Bhanu Kumari & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/04/2008

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T REPORTABLE

CIVIL APPEAL NO.    2786 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 4120 of 2007)

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1.      Leave granted.

2.      Challenge in this appeal is to order passed by a learned  Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench.   Respondent No. 1 had filed application in terms of Section 24  of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the ’CPC’)   seeking transfer of Civil Case No.41/202/05  titled Jitendra  Singh v. Smt. Bhanu Kumari & Ors. 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  Additional District Judge No.2 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 Sewai  Tej Singh v. Jitender Singh & Ors.) 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  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 Additional District Judge

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

No.2, Alwar in the month of December, 2005.   The petitioner although filed instant petition in  this Court on August 17, 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 astrong likelihood of the matter  pending before the District Judge being  decided ex-parte against the petitioner and  other members.  This apprehension of  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 January 8,  2006 respondent Jitendra Singh lodged FIR  No. 19 of 2006 with the Police Station Kotwali  Alwar against the petitioner and respondents  Amar Raj Pal 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  Additional District Judge No. 2 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 the  respondent No.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 the  respondent No. 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 the respondent No.2 negotiated for  sale of the property of respondent No. 4  Maharaja Sawai Tej Singh Ji for a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

consideration of Rs.77,30,328/-. The  agreement entered into on 18.4.2005 besides  being void was for inadequate consideration.   The respondent No.2 as attorney received the  part payment of the consideration in cash and  by cheque in his own name.  The petitioner  and the respondent Nos. 2&3 to make  wrongful gain colluded and connived with each  other to make the respondent No.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.  The respondent  No.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 Annexure R-1/4, R-1/5 and R- 1/6 respectively.  A true and correct copy of  the affidavit of respondent No.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 & 3 are represented by experienced  lawyers and they have been representing the respondents for  very long period.  The parameters for exercise in Sections 24 &  25 have been laid down by this Court in several cases. Earlier  than 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.