http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: GUDA VIJAYALAKSHMI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: GUDA RAMCHANDRA SEKHARA SASTRY

DATE OF JUDGMENT13/03/1981

BENCH: TULZAPURKAR, V.D. BENCH: TULZAPURKAR, V.D. SEN, AMARENDRA NATH (J)

CITATION:  1981 AIR 1143            1981 SCR  (3) 223  1981 SCC  (2) 646        1981 SCALE  (1)794

ACT:      Transfer of  proceedings under  the Hindu Marriage Act- Power of  the Supreme  Court to transfer under section 25 of the Civil  Procedure Code-Whether  section  25  C.P.C.  gets excluded by  reason of  provisions of sections 21 and 21A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

HEADNOTE:      The petitioner  (wife) filed  a suit  (O.P.  72/79)  in forma  pauperis  seeking  maintenance  from  the  respondent (husband) in  the court  of subordinate Judge, Eluru (Andhra Pradesh). On  the receipt  of the  notice of  the suit,  the respondent filed  a divorce suit (Petition Case No. 28/1980) against the wife under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955  in   the  court   of  the   District  Judge,   Udaipur (Rajasthan). By  the instant  transfer petition  filed under section 25  C.P.C., 1908, the wife sought to get the suit at Udaipur transferred to Eluru.      A preliminary  objection was  raised to the effect that section 25  of the Civil Procedure Code, which gets excluded by reason  of the  provisions of  sections 20  and 21 of the Hindu Marriage  Act, 1955,  is not applicable to proceedings under the  said Act  and as  such the  Supreme Court  has no power to  transfer the  husband’s suit from Udaipur District Court, Udaipur  (Rajasthan) to  Eluru District  Court, Eluru (A.P.).      Rejecting the preliminary objection, the Court ^      HELD: Per curiam      On merits,  it is  expedient for the ends of justice to transfer the  husband’s suit  pending in  the District Court Udaipur (Rajasthan)  to the  District Court at Eluru (Andhra Pradesh), where both the proceedings could be tried together and for  that purpose,  the wife  is agreeable  to have  her maintenance suit  transferred to the District Court at Eluru (A.P.). [226 A-B]      Per Tulzapurkar J.      1. It  will invariably  be expedient to have a joint or consolidated hearing or trial by one and the same Court of a husband’s petition for restitution of conjugal rights on the ground that  the wife has withdrawn from his society without reasonable excuse  under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

and the  wife’s petition for judicial separation against her husband on  ground of  cruelty under  section 10 of the said Act in  order to  avoid conflicting decisions being rendered by two  different Courts.  In such  a situation  resort will have to be had to the 224 powers under  sections 23  to 25 of the Civil Procedure Code for directing  transfer of  the petitions for a consolidated hearing. [228 G-H, 227A]      2:1.  On   a  proper   construction  of   the  relevant provisions, it cannot be said that the substantive provision contained in  section 25 Civil Procedure Code is excluded by reason of  section 21  of the Hindu Marriage Act. 1955. [226 F]      2:2. In  terms, section  21 C.P.C.  does not  make  any distinction between procedural and substantive provisions of C.P.C. and  all that it provides is that the Code, as far as may be, shall apply to all proceedings under the Act and the phrase "as  far as  may be" means and is intended to exclude only  such   provisions  of  the  Code  as  are  or  may  be inconsistent with  any of  the provisions of the Code. It is impossible to  say that  such  provisions  of  the  Code  as partake of  the character of substantive law are excluded by implication as  no such implication can be read into section 21 of  the Act  and  a  particular  provision  of  the  Code irrespective of whether it is procedural or substantive will not apply  only if it is inconsistent with any provisions of the Act. [226 G-H, 227 A-B]      3. Section 21A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 does not exclude the  power of  transfer conferred  upon the  Supreme Court by  the present  section 25  C.P.C.,  in  relation  to proceedings under that Act. The marginal note of section 21A itself makes  it clear  that it deals with power to transfer petitions and  direct their  joint or consolidated "trial in certain cases"  and is  not exhaustive. Section 21A does not deal with  the present  section 25  C.P.C.  which  has  been substituted by  an amendment  which has come into force with effect from February 1, 1977 (section 11 of the Amending Act 104, 1976). By the amendment very wide and plenary power has been conferred  on the  Supreme Court  for the first time to transfer any suit, appeal or other proceedings from one High Court to  another High  Court or from one Civil Court in one State to  another Civil  Court in any other State throughout the country. Conferral of such wide and plenary power on the Supreme Court  could  not  have  been  in  contemplation  of Parliament at  the time  of enactment  of section 21A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. [227 C-D, F-H, 228 A-B]      Smt. Rama  Kanta v.  Ashok Kumar,  AIR  1977  Punjab  & Haryana 373 and Priyavari Mehta v. Priyanath Mehta, AIR 1980 Bombay 337, overruled.      Per Amrendra Nath Sen, J.      1.  A  plain  reading  of  section  25  C.P.C.  clearly indicates that  very wide  jurisdiction and powers have been conferred on  the Supreme Court to transfer any suit, appeal or any  other proceedings  from a  High Court or other Civil Court in  any State  to a High Court or other Civil Court in any other  State for  the ends  of  justice.  Supreme  Court enjoys the  power and jurisdiction to entertain the transfer application under section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure. [230 F, 233 D]      2 : 1. Sections 21 and 21A of the Hindu Marriage Act do not in  any  way,  exclude,  effect  or  curtail  the  power conferred on  the Supreme Court under section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If the jurisdiction clearly conferred 225

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

on any  court has  to  be  ousted,  the  exclusion  of  such jurisdiction must  be made  in clear  and unequivocal terms. [232E, 233D]      2 :  2. Section  21 of  the  Hindu  Marriage  Act  only provides that  "all proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act shall be  regulated as  far as  may be  by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908".  Section 21 of the Hindu Marriage Act does not deal  with the question of jurisdiction of any court and it cannot be construed to exclude the jurisdiction conferred on the Supreme Court under section 25 C.P.C. [232 E-G]      2 :  3. Section  21A of  the Hindu  Marriage  Act  has, indeed, no bearing on the question of jurisdiction conferred on the Supreme Court under section 25 C.P.C. Section 21A has no application  to the  case of  transfer  of  any  suit  or proceeding from one State to another. [233 B-C]      2 :  4. The  Supreme Court  must necessarily  enjoy the power and  jurisdiction under  the provisions  of section 25 C.P.C. of  transferring such  a suit  or proceeding  for the ends of  justice unless  the power  and jurisdiction  of the Supreme Court  are specifically  taken away  by any statute. [232D-E]      3. Section  25 of the Code of Civil Procedure came into force after  section 21  and 21A  of the  Hindu Marriage Act have been  incorporated in  the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and as such section 25 of the Code overrides sections 21 and 21A of the Hindu Marriage Act. [233 A-E]

JUDGMENT:      ORIGINAL JURISDICTION:  Transfer  Petition  No.  36  of 1980.      Petition  under   section  25  of  the  Code  of  Civil Procedure for  transfer of  case No.  28 of  1980 Misc. (36) pending  in   the  Court   of  the   Distt.  Judge,  Udaipur (Rajasthan) to the Court of Subordinate Judge, Eluru (Andhra Pradesh) to  be tried alongwith O. P. No. 72 of 1979 pending in that court.      G.S. Rama Rao for the Petitioner.      B.D. Sharma for the Respondent.      The following Judgments were delivered:      TULZAPURKAR, J.  On September  26, 1979, the petitioner (wife) filed  a suit  in forma  pauperis seeking maintenance from  the   respondent  (her   husband)  in   the  Court  of Subordinate Judge, Eluru (Andhra Pradesh) being O. P. No. 72 of 1979.  On the  receipt of  the notice  of the  suit,  the respondent filed  a divorce  suit (Petition  Case No.  28 of 1980) against  the wife  under s.  13 of  the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955  in the  Court  of  the  District  Judge,  Udaipur (Rajasthan). By the instant transfer petition filed under s. 25 C.P.C. 226 1908  the   wife  is  seeking  to  get  the  husband’s  suit transferred to  Eluru. On merits we are satisfied that it is expedient for  the ends of justice to transfer the husband’s suit to  the District  Court at  Eluru (A.P.) where both the proceedings could be tried together and for that purpose the wife is  agreeable to  have her maintenance suit transferred to the District High Court at Eluru (A.P.)      However,  counsel  for  the  respondent  (husband)  has raised before  us a  preliminary objection that s. 25 of the C.P.C. under  which the  transfer petition  has been made is not applicable  to proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and  as such  this Court  has no  power to transfer the husband’s suit  from Udaipur  District Court to the District

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

Court at  Eluru. He urged that s. 25 of C.P.C. gets excluded by reason  of the  provisions of  s. 21 and 21A of the Hindu Marriage Act  1955. According to him s. 25 C.P.C. deals with the substantive  law and  not procedural law and since s. 21 of the  Hindu Marriage  Act  makes  applicable  to  all  the proceedings under  the Act only such provisions of C.P.C. as relate to the regulation of proceedings i.e. such provisions which deal with procedural matters only, s. 25 C.P.C. is not applicable. He  also urged  that s.  21 A  (3) of  the Hindu Marriage Act  also makes  the above  position  clear  beyond doubt by  specifically excluding  ss. 24  and 25 C.P.C. from being applied  to the  proceedings under  the Hindu Marriage Act. A  large number  of authorities  were  referred  to  by counsel  to   substantiate  his   contention   and   general principles but  in particular  one decision  of  the  Nagpur Bench of  the Bombay  High Court  in the  case of  Priyavari Mehta v.  Priyanath Mehta was pressed into service as having a direct bearing on the point.      In our  view, on  proper construction  of the  relevant provisions it  is not  possible to  uphold  the  preliminary objection. In  the first place it is difficult to accept the contention that the substantive provision contained in s. 25 C.P.C. is  excluded by reason of s. 21 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.  Section 21  of the  Hindu  Marriage  Act  merely provides: "Subject to other provisions contained in this Act and to such rules as the High Court may make in that behalf, all proceedings under this Act shall be regulated, as far as may be,  by the  Code of Civil Procedure, 1908". In terms s. 21 does  not make  any distinction  between  procedural  and substantive provisions of C.P.C. and all that it provides is that  the  Code  as  far  as  may  be  shall  apply  to  all proceedings under the Act and the phrase 227 "as far  as may  be" means  and is  intended to exclude only such provisions  of the  Code as  are or may be inconsistent with any  of the  provisions of the Act. It is impossible to say that  such provisions  of the  Code as  partake  of  the character of  substantive law are excluded by implication as no such  implication can be read into s. 21 and a particular provision  of   the  Code  irrespective  of  whether  it  is procedural or  substantive will  not apply  only  if  it  is inconsistent with any provision of the Act. For instance, it is difficult to countenance the suggestion that the doctrine of res  judicata contained  in  s.  11  of  the  Code  which partakes  of   the  character  of  substantive  law  is  not applicable to proceedings under the Act. Res judicata, after all, is  a branch  or specie  of the Rule of Estoppel called Estoppel by Record and though Estoppel is often described as a rule  of evidence,  the whole  concept is  more  correctly viewed as  a  substantive  rule  of  law  (See:  Canada  and Dominion Sugar  Co. Ltd.  v. Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Ltd.      So far as s. 21A of the Hindu Marriage Act is concerned the marginal note of that section itself makes it clear that it deals  with power  to transfer petitions and direct their joint or  consolidated trial  "in certain  cases" and is not exhaustive. Further  sub-s. (3)  of s.  21A on  which strong reliance was placed runs thus:           "21A (3).  In a  case where  clause  (b)  of  sub-      section (2)  applies, the  Court or  the Government, as      the case  may be,  competent under  the Code  of  Civil      Procedure, 1908  (5 of  1908) to  transfer any suit for      proceeding from  the district  court in which the later      petition has  been presented  to the  district court in      which the  earlier petition  is pending, shall exercise

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

    its powers to transfer such later petition as if it had      been empowered so to do under the said Code." This  provision  in  terms  deals  with  the  power  of  the Government or the Court on whom powers of transfer have been conferred by  the C.P.C.  as it  then stood, that is to say, old s. 24 and 25 of C.P.C. It does not deal with the present s. 25  C.P.C. which  has been  substituted by  an  amendment which has  come into force with effect from February 1, 1977 (s. 11  of the  Amending Act  104 of 1976). By the amendment very wide and plenary power has been conferred on this Court for the  first time  to transfer  any suit,  appeal or other proceedings from  one High  Court to  another High  Court or from one Civil 228 Court in one State to another Civil Court in any other State throughout the  country. Conferral  of such wide and plenary power on this Court could not have been in the contemplation of Parliament  at the  time of  enactment of  s. 21A  of the Hindu Marriage  Act, 1955.  It is,  therefore, difficult  to accept the  contention that  s, 21A  of Hindu  Marriage  Act excludes the  power of transfer conferred upon this Court by the present s. 25 of C.P.C. in relation to proceedings under that Act.      Coming to  the decision rendered by the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay  High Court  in Priyavari Mehta’s case (supra) it needs to be pointed out that the aforesaid aspects of s. 21A of the  Hindu Marriage  Act and  the present  s. 25  of  the C.P.C. were  not considered  by the  Nagpur  Bench  at  all. Moreover, the  Nagpur Bench,  following the  decision of the Punjab and  Haryana High  Court in  Smt. Rama Kanta v. Ashok Kumar has  also taken  the view  that s.  21A of  the  Hindu Marriage Act  permits transfer and consolidation of only two types of  petition under  the Act,  namely, cross  petitions filed by  the two  spouses against each other under s. 10 or s. 13  of the Act and that consolidation or joint hearing of other  types   of  petitions   is  excluded   by   necessary intendment. The Bench has observed:           "The effect  of s.  21A, therefore, in my opinion,      is that  joint or  consolidated hearing  or  trials  of      petitions other  than those  mentioned in  that section      not being  permissible, the powers under s. 23 to 25 of      the Code  cannot be exercised for transfer of petitions      for  a   consolidated  hearing  of  the  petitions  not      contemplated by that section." Such a  view, in  our opinion,  is not  correct.  As  stated earlier, in  the matter  of  transfer  of  petitions  for  a consolidated hearing  thereof s.  21A cannot  be regarded as exhaustive for  the marginal  note clearly suggests that the section deals  with power  to transfer  petitions and direct their joint  and  consolidated  trial  "in  certain  cases." Moreover, it will invariably be expedient to have a joint or consolidated hearing or trial by one and the same Court of a husband’s petition  for restitution  of conjugal  rights  on ground that  the wife has withdrawn from his society without reasonable excuse  under s.  9 of  the Act  and  the  wife’s petition for  judicial separation  against  her  husband  on ground of  cruelty under  s. 10 of the Act in order to avoid conflicting decisions being rendered by two different 229 Courts. In  such a  situation resort  will have to be had to the powers  under ss.  23 to  25 of the Civil Procedure Code for directing  transfer of  the petitions for a consolidated hearing. Reading  s. 21A  in the  manner done  by the Nagpur Bench which leads to anomalous results has to be avoided.      In this  view of  the matter, the preliminary objection

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

is overruled.  Divorce case  No. 28  of 1980  pending in the District Court  Udaipur (Rajasthan)  is transferred  to  the District Court  Eluru (A.P.),  to  which  Court  the  wife’s petition for  maintenance shall  also stand  transferred. No order as to costs.      AMRENDRA NATH  SEN, J.  I agree with the order proposed by my  learned brother.  I, however, propose to make certain observations with regard to the preliminary objection raised as to  the jurisdiction  of this  Court  to  entertain  this application. The  preliminary objection  raised is  that the jurisdiction and  power conferred  on this Court under S. 25 of  the   Code  of  Civil  Procedure  are  excluded  by  the provisions contained  in S.  21 and  S.  21A  of  the  Hindu Marriage Act;  and as  S. 25  of the Civil Procedure Code is not attracted,  this Court  does not  have  jurisdiction  to entertain this  application for  transfer. S. 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows:-      "(1) On the application of a party, and after notice to           the parties,  and after  hearing such  of them  as           desire to  be heard, the Supreme Court may, at any           stage, if  satisfied  that  an  order  under  this           section is  expedient for  the  ends  of  justice,           direct that  any suit,  appeal or other proceeding           be transferred  from a  High Court  or other Civil           Court in  one State to a High Court or other Civil           Court in any other State.      (2)  Every application under this section shall be made           by  a  motion  which  shall  be  supported  by  an           affidavit.      (3)  The Court  to which  such suit,  appeal  or  other           proceeding is  transferred shall,  subject to  any           special  directions  in  the  order  of  transfer,           either re-try  it or  proceed from  the  stage  at           which it was transferred to it.      (4)  In dismissing  any application under this section,           the Supreme  Court may,  if it  is of opinion that           the application  was frivolous or vexatious, order           the applicant to pay by way of compensation to any           person who has opposed the 230           application such  sum, not  exceeding two thousand           rupees,  as   it  considers   appropriate  in  the           circumstances of the case.      (5)  The law  applicable to  any suit,  appeal or other           proceeding transferred  under the section shall be           the law  which the court in which the suit, appeal           or  other  proceeding  was  originally  instituted           ought to  have applied  to such  suit,  appeal  or           proceeding." It  may   be  noticed   that  the  present  section  25  was substituted for  the former  section 25 by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment)  Act, 1976.  In this connection it may be relevant to set out S. 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as it  stood before its amendment by the substitution of the present section. The earlier section 25 was in the following terms:-      "(1) Where  any   part  to  a  suit,  appeal  or  other           proceeding pending  in a  High Court presided over           by a  single Judge  objects to  its being heard by           him and  the Judge  is satisfied  that  there  are           reasonable grounds  for the  objection,  he  shall           make a  report to the State Government, which may,           by notification  in the Official Gazette, transfer           such suit,  appeal or proceeding in any other High           Court:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

              Provided that  no suit,  appeal or proceeding           shall be  transferred to  a High Court without the           consent of  the State Government of the State that           High Court has its principal seat.      (2)  The  law   applicable  to   any  suit,  appeal  or           proceeding so  transferred shall  be the law which           the Court  in which the suit, appeal or proceeding           was originally instituted ought to have applied to           such case." A plain  reading of S. 25 of the Code clearly indicates that very wide  jurisdiction and  powers have  been conferred  on this Court  to  transfer  any  suit,  appeal  or  any  other proceeding from  a High  Court or  other Civil  Court in any State to  a High  Court or  other Civil  Court in  any other State for  the ends  of justice.  I shall  now set  out  the relevant provisions  of the Hindu Marriage Act. S. 21 of the Hindu Marriage Act is in the following terms:-           "Subject to the other provisions contained in this      Act and  to such  rules as  the High  Court may make in      this behalf, all 231      proceedings under  this Act  shall be regulated, as far      as may be by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908." Section 21A  which was introduced in the Act by the Amending Act, (68 of 1976) provided as follows:-      "(1) where-           (a)  a petition  under this Act has been presented                to a  district court having jurisdiction by a                party to  a marriage praying for a decree for                judicial separation  under s.  10  or  for  a                decree of divorce under section 13, and           (b)  another petition  under  this  Act  has  been                presented thereafter  by the  other party  to                the  marriage   praying  for   a  decree  for                judicial separation under section 10 or for a                decree of  divorce under  section 13  on  any                ground, whether in the same district court or                in a  different district  court, in  the same                State or in a different State;      the petition  shall be  dealt with as specified in sub-      section(2) (2) in a case where sub-section (1) applies;           (a)  if the  petitions are  presented to  the same                district court,  both the  petitions shall be                tried and heard together by that Court:           (b)  if the  petitions are  presented to different                district courts, the petition presented later                shall be transferred to the district court in                which the  earlier petition was presented and                both  the   petitions  shall   be  heard  and                disposed of together by the district court in                which the earlier petition was presented.      (3)  In a  case where  clause (b)  of  sub-section  (2)           applies, the  court or  the Government as the case           may  be,   competent  under   the  Code  of  Civil           Procedure, 1908 to transfer any suit or proceeding           from  the   district  court  in  which  the  later           petition has  been presented to the district court           in which  the earlier  petition is  pending, shall           exercise  its   powers  to   transfer  such  later           petition as  if it  had been  empowered so  to  do           under the said Code." 232 The learned  counsel for  the respondent argues that in view of the  provisions contained  in S.  21, only the provisions contained  in  the  Code  of  Civil  Procedure  relating  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

procedure which  will regulate  the  proceedings  instituted under the  Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 will apply; and as S. 25 of the  Code of  Civil Procedure  does not  appertain to the domain of  procedure and confers substantive right, the said section is  not applicable  and cannot  be attracted.  It is argued that  this position  is further  made  clear  by  the provisions contained in S. 21A.      In my opinion, this argument of the learned counsel for the respondent  husband is  without any  substance.  I  have earlier set  out section  25 of  the Code of Civil Procedure and I have pointed out that an analysis of the section makes it abundantly clear that for the ends of justice, wide power and jurisdiction  have been  conferred on  this Court in the matter of  transfer of  any suit,  appeal or proceeding from any High  Court or  other Civil Court in one State to a High Court or  other Civil  Court in any other State. A suit or a proceeding for  divorce under  the Hindu  Marriage Act  in a Civil Court  is necessarily a suit or proceeding and must on a plain  reading of  S. 25(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure be held  to come  under S.  25(1) of  the Code,  as the said section speaks of any suit, appeal or other proceeding. This Court must  necessarily enjoy  the  power  and  jurisdiction under the  said provisions  of transferring  such a  suit or proceeding for  the ends  of justice,  unless the  power and jurisdiction of  this Court  are specifically  taken away by any statute.  If the  jurisdiction clearly  conferred on any Court has  to be  ousted, the exclusion of such jurisdiction must be  made in  clear and  unequivocal terms.  S.21 of the Hindu Marriage  Act does  not  deal  with  the  question  of jurisdiction of  any Court.  As no  procedure with regard to the proceedings  under the  Hindu Marriage Act has been laid down in  the said  Act, S.  21 of the Act only provides that ’all proceedings under this Act shall be regulated as far as may be  by the  Code of Civil Procedure.’ S. 21 of the Hindu Marriage Act cannot be construed to exclude the jurisdiction conferred on  this Court  under S.  25 of  the Code of Civil Procedure. It  does not become necessary in the instant case to decide  whether the provision in relation to jurisdiction of this  Court contained  in S.  25 of  the  Code  of  Civil Procedure is  one of  substantive law  or it  belongs to the domain of  Procedure. Even  I accept  the  argument  of  the learned counsel  for the respondent that S. 25 does not form any part  of the  procedural  law  and  is  a  part  of  the substantive law,  I am  of  the  opinion  that  jurisdiction conferred on this Courts by S. 25 of 233 the Code  of Civil Procedure, is not in any way, affected by S. 21  of the  Hindu Marriage  Act which,  as I have already noted, only  provides that  ’all proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act shall be regulated as far as may be by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.’      S. 21A  of the  Hindu Marriage  Act, in my opinion, has indeed no  bearing on the question of jurisdiction conferred on this Court under S. 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure. S. 21A of  the Hindu Marriage Act makes provisions for transfer of petitions  specified in  the said section and for hearing and disposal  of such  petitions together  by  the  District Court in which the earlier petition has been presented. Such power has  been conferred on the Court or the Government. S. 21A has  no application  to the case of transfer of any suit or proceeding  from one  State to another. As I have earlier noted, very  wide power and jurisdiction have been conferred on this  Court in  the interest  of justice for transferring any appeal,  suit or  proceeding from  one State  to another under S.  25 of  the Code of Civil Procedure. In the instant

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

case, the  petitioner has  applied for  transfer of the suit pending in the District at Udaipur in the State of Rajasthan to the  appropriate Court  at Eluru  in the  State of Andhra Pradesh. I  am, therefore,  of the  opinion that  this Court enjoys  the   power  and   jurisdiction  to  entertain  this application under  S. 25  of the Code of Civil Procedure and S. 21  and S.  21A of  the Hindu Marriage Act do not, in any way, exclude,  affect or curtail the power conferred on this Court under  S. 25  of the  Code of  Civil Procedure.  I may incidentally add  that the present section 25 in the Code of Civil Procedure  came into  force after  S. 21  and 21A have been incorporated in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. V.D.K.                       Preliminary objection rejected. 234