Holding

A High Court has no power to transfer a case pending in its subordinate court to a court subordinate to another High Court; only the Supreme Court may do so under Section 25 of the CPC.

Summary

The husband filed a divorce petition under the Hindu Marriage Act in the Family Court at Ujjain. The wife applied to the Madhya Pradesh High Court under Section 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to have the case transferred to a court in Malegaon, Maharashtra, and the High Court ordered the transfer. The husband appealed, contending that a High Court lacks authority to transfer a suit pending in its subordinate court to a court subordinate to another High Court. The Supreme Court examined the interplay between Section 23(3) and the amended Section 25 of the CPC, holding that Section 23 is merely procedural and does not confer transfer power, whereas Section 25 gives exclusive transfer authority to the Supreme Court. It also ruled that Section 151 cannot be invoked because the transfer provisions are exhaustive. Consequently, the High Court's order was set aside and the appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether a High Court can transfer a suit pending in a court subordinate to it to a court subordinate to another High Court under Section 23(3) of the CPC.
Whether the amendment of Section 25 of the CPC in 1976 supersedes Section 23(3) and vests exclusive transfer power in the Supreme Court.
Whether Section 151 of the CPC can be used as an inherent power to effect such a transfer.
Whether Section 23 of the CPC is a substantive provision conferring power or merely a procedural one.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 151, s. 22, s. 23, s. 24, s. 25
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955s. 13, s. 21A, s. 9

Subjects

transfer of suitCivil Procedure CodeSection 23Section 25jurisdictionHigh CourtSupreme Courtmatrimonial litigationHindu Marriage Actinherent powersSection 151

Judgment

[2008] 13 S.C.R. 1056
~·

A DURGESH SHARMA
v.
JAYSHREE
(Civil Appeal No. 5857 of 2008)

B
SEPTEMBER 26, 2008 ~ .
[C.K. THAKKER AND D.K. JAIN, JJ]

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:

s. 23 ands. 25 (as substituted by Act 104of1976) rlw ss.
c 22 and 24 - High Court, in purported exercise of its power u/s
23(3), transferring a case pending in a court subordinate to it,
to a court subordinate to another High Court - HELD: A High
Court has no power to transfer a case pending in a court sub-
ordinate to it, to any court subordinate to another High Court,
D and it is only the Supreme Court which can exercise the said -.,. .
authority uls 25 of the Code - s.23 is not a substantive provi-
sion but a procedural or machinery provision, which merely
provides forum, mode, method or manner in approaching an
appropriate court to make an application - It does not em-
E power a court to effect transfer - s. 25 is a 'complete Code'
and comprises substantive as well as procedural law - It al-
lows a party to make an application before the Court and also
empowers the Court to make an order of transfer - s. 23 must
be read subject to s.25 - Decisions of High Courts taking a
F contrary view, overruled - Impugned order of High Court set t· -
aside.
ss. 22 to 25 and s.151 - Transfer of cases -Applicability
of s.151 - HELD: Since law relating to transfer of cases is
contained in ss. 22 to 25 of the Code and these provisions
G are exhaustive in nature, s.151 has no application.

The appellant-husband filed a petition for dissolu-
tion of marriage uls 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in +
the Family Court at Ujjain (Madhya Pradesh) stating that

H 1056
DURGESH SHARMA v. JAYSHREE 1057
'j.

both the parties lastly lived together at Ujjain as husband A
and wife. lhe respondent-wife in her written statement
denied the averments and contended that the Ujjain court
had no jurisdiction to try and decide the petition. She also
filed an application u/s 9 of the Act for restitution of con-
• -...1.:
jugal rights in the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), B
Malegaon (Maharashtra). Thereafter, she filed an applica-
tion u/s 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh for transfer of the petition filed
by her husband in Ujjain court to a court at Malegaon.
The High Court allowed tlie application. c
In the instant appeal filed by the husband, the sub-
missions of the parties were confined to the power, au-
thority and jurisdiction to transfer suits/appeal/other pro-
ceedings by a High Court from one court subordinate to
• 'I' it to a court subordinate to another High Court: D
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 A High Court has no power, authority or
jurisdiction to transfer a case, appeal or other proceed-
ings pending in a court subordinate to it, to any court E
subordinate to~anothe_r High Court in purported exercise
of power under'sub-section (3) of Section 23 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908,'and it is only the Supreme Court
which can exercise the said authority under Section 25
·-; of the Code as substituted by Amendment Act of 1976. F
[para 8] [1085,C-D]
Guda Vijaya/akshmi v. Guda Sekhara Sastry, (1981) 2
sec 646 - relied on.
1.2 The law relating to transfer of cases (suits, ap- G
peals and other proceedings) is well-settled. It is found in
Sections 22 to 25 of the Co.de, and these provisions are
-.+ exhaustive in nature. Whereas Sections 22, 24 and 25 deal
with power of transfer, Section 23 merely provides forum
and specifies the Court in which an application for trans-
H
1058 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R. -\. .
A fer may be made. Section 23 is not a substantive provi-
sion vesting power in a particular Court to order transfer.
[para 7] [1081,F-G]
1.3 Where several Courts having jurisdiction are sub-
ordinate to one appellate Court, an application for trans-
B fer may be made to such appellate Court and the Court
~ .
may transfer a case from one Court subordinate to it to
another Court subordinate to it. Likewise, where such
Courts are subordinate to the same High Court, an appli-
cation may be made and action may be taken by the High
c Court transferring a case from one Court subordinate to it
to any other Court subordinate to that High Court. Where
several Courts having jurisdiction are subordinate to dif-
ferent High Courts, it is only the Supreme Court which may
pass an order of transfer and one High Court has no power,
'I' •
D jurisdiction or authority to transfer a case pending in any
court subordinate to that High Court to a Court subordi-
nate to other High Court. [para 72] [1081,G-H; 1082,A-C]
1.4 Section 25, as originally enacted in the Code of 1908
and the decisions prior to Amendment Act of 1976, have no
E application after substitution of Section 25 as it stands to-
day. Section 23 has no application to such cases and the
only provision attracted is Section 25. [para 72] [1082,D]
Abu Bakar Abdul Rahiman & Co. v. Rambux, AIR 1916
t .
F Nagpur 31 : 40 IC 393; Ram Kumar v. Tula Ram NathuRam,
AIR 1920 Patna 138 (2) : 56 IC 920; Dr. Rajnath v. L. Vidya
Ram & Ors., AIR 1953 All 772; Firm Kanhaiyalal v. Zumerlal,
AIR 1940 Nag 145: 190 IC 439; P Salayandi Nadar& Ors. v.
Venugopala Chetty & Ors., AIR 1960 Ker 91 : ILR 1959 Ker
180; Western UP Electric Power Supply Company Ltd. v.
G
Hind Lamps Ltd., (1969) 2 SCWR 16: 1969 UJ (SC) 54; and
State Bank of India v. Mis Sakow Industries Faridabad (Pvt.)
-I -
Ltd., New Delhi, AIR 1976 P&H 321 - referred to.
1.5 Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Code enacts
H that "On the application of a party'', the Supreme Court may
DURGESH SHARMA v. JAYSHREE 1059
.... )-
pass an appropriate order of transfer. Thus, Section 25 is A
'self-contained Code' and comprises of substantive as well
as procedural law on the point. It allows a party to move the
Court by making an application as also it empowers the
Court to make an order of transfer. [para 74] [1082,E-F]
1.6 Section 23 of the Code is not a substantive provi- B
~ .......

sion authorizing a Court mentioned therein to order trans-
' fer. The said section is merely a procedural one or a ma-
chinery provision and provides mode, method or manner in
approaching a Court for making an application. It does not
empower a Court to effect transfer. Moreover, Section 25 c
of the Code is a 'complete Code' dealing with substantive
as well as procedural law. [para 78] [1083,H; 1084,A]
2. After the commencement of the Constitution of
India and establishment of the Supreme Court, Parliament
.. -.,! D
thought it proper to amend Section 25 of the Code and,
accordingly, it was substituted empowering the Supreme
· Court to order transfer from one High Court to another
High Court or from one Civil Court in one State to another
Civil Court in any other State. It is, no doubt, true that even
when Section 25 in the present form was substituted by E
the Amendment Act of 1976, sub-section (3) of Section 23
of the Code has neither been deleted nor amended. That,
however, is not relevant. Since Section 23 is merely-a pro-
cedural provision, no order of transfer can be made un-
. ~ der the said provision. If the case is covered by Section F
25 of the Code, it is only that section which will apply for
both the purposes, namely, for the purpose of making
application and also for the purpose of effecting transfer.
Section 23, therefore, must be read subject to Section 25
of the Code. Th~ decisions taking a contrary view do not· G
lay down correct law and are, therefore, overruled. Even
if such power was with a High Court earlier, it stood with-
- +· drawn with effect from January 1, 1977 in view of Section
25 of the Code as amended by Code of Civil Procedure
(Amendment) Act, 1976. [para 79] [1084,8-G] H
1060 SUPR~ME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.

A Priyavari Mehta v. Priyanath Mehta, AIR 1980 Born 337;
Mamta Gupta v. Mukund Kumar Gupta, AIR 2000 AP 394;
and Lakshmi Nagdev v. Jitendra Kumar Nagdev (2004) 4
MPLJ 310 - overruled.
3. Every Court has its own local or territorial limits
8 beyond which it cannot exercise the jurisdiction. So far
as the Supreme Court is concerned, its jurisdiction is not
circumscribed by any territorial limitation and it extends
over any person or authority within the territory of India.
But, it has no jurisdiction outside the country. So far as a
C High Court is concerned, its jurisdiction is limited to terri-
tory within which it exercises jurisdiction and not beyond
it. On that analogy also, a High Court cannot pass an or-
der transferring a case pending in a Court subordinate to
it to a Court subordinate to another High Court. It would
D be inconsistent with the limitation as to territorial J·uris- .,.. ..
diction of the Court. [para 75] [1082,F-H; 1083,A]
4. It is settled law that inherent powers may be exer-
cised ex debito justitiae in those cases where there is no
express provision in the Code. The said power cannot
E be exercised in contravention or in conflict of or ignoring
express and specific provision of law. Since the law relat-
ing to transfer is contained in Sections 22 to 25 of the
Code, and these provisions are exhaustive in nature, Sec-
tion 151 has no application. [para 80] [1085,A-B]
F
5. The order passed by the High Court is not sus-
,. .
tainable and is accordingly set aside. [para 81] [1085 C]
Case Law Reference
AIR 1916 Nagpur 31 : 40 referred to para 41
G
IC 393
AIR 1920 Patna 138 (2) : 56 referred to para 43
IC 920 ./ -

AIR 1953 All 772 referred to para 45
H
DURGESH SHARMA v. JAYSHREE 1061
'"}

AIR 1940 Nag 145 : 190 referred to para 46 A
IC 439
AIR 1960 Ker 91 : ILR referred to para 48
1959 Ker 180
.4' ~
(1969) 2 SCWR 16 : 1969 referred to para 49
B
UJ (SC) 54
AIR 1976 P&H 321 referred to para 54
AIR 1980 Born 337 overruled para 58
AIR 2000 AP 394 overruled para 62
c
(2004) 4 MPLJ 310 overruled para 65
(1981) 2 sec 646 relied on para 68
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5857
... _"""'ii, of 2008
D
From the final Judgment and order dated 25.1.2007 of
the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, bench at lndor_e in Misc.
Civil Case No. 414 of 2005
A. K. Ganguli, Chanchal Kumar Ganguli for the Appellant.
E
Manisha T Karia and Sunil Kumar Verma for the Respon-
dent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
' ·-f C.K. THAKKER, J. 1. Leave granted. F
2. A short but interesting question of law has been raised
before this Court in the present appeal as to the power, author-
ity and jurisdiction to transfer suits/appeals/other proceedings
by a High Court from one Court subordinate to it to another
Cou_rt subordinate to another High Court. G

Factual Matrix
-~

3. To appreciate the controversy, it is appropriate to set
out facts of the case. The appellant herein Durgesh Sharma is
the husband of the respondent Smt. Jayshree Sharma. Mar- H
1062 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 13 S.C.R.
-\ ..
A riage of the parties was solemnized at Malegaon, District Nasik
in the State of Maharashtra on May 16, 1989. It is not in dispute
that after the marriage, both the parties lived in Ujjain in the
State of Madhya Pradesh.
.....
t
4. It is the case of the husband that the wife is quarrel- ~ i..
B some. ·She used to raise disputes with the husband and his
family members on petty matters. She also threatened the hus-
band that in case she would be kept at Ujjain against her wishes,
she would consume poison. It is also the allegation of the ap-
pellant-husband that respondent-wife left matrimonial home in
c 1991. She thereafter stayed with her parents and at parental
home, gave birth to twins - son Mayank and daughter Malvika
on December 25, 1991. She stayed at parental home from 1991
to 1997. In 1997, the respondent-wife came to Ujjain, but after
about 3-4 months, she again left matrimonial home and de-
D serted the husband permanently without proper or sufficient rea-
son, depriving the husband of matrimonial enjoyment. The
"' .
husband's prestige has been badly affected by the conduct of
the wife.
5. The appellant-husband served a notice through his ad-
E vocate to the respondent-wife on September 22, 2004 to join
him to which a reply was sent by the wife through her counsel on
o.ctober 08, 2004 wherein false allegations have been levelled
against the husband which clearly went to show that she was
not prepared to stay with the husband. _
F ,. .
6. Since the respondent-wife did not return matrimonial
home, the appellant-husband instituted a petition under Sec-
tion 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to
as 'the Act') on October 27, 2004 in the Family Court at Ujjain
which was registered as HMA Petition No. 164A of 2004 for
G
dissolution of marriage on the grounds of (i) desertion; and (ii)
cruelty. The appellant husband has stated in the petition that
both the parties lastly lived together at Ujjain as husband and ~ -
wife. Ujjain Court has, therefore, jurisdiction to entertain, try and
decide the petition.
H
· , 'OURGESH SHARMA v. JAYSHREE 1063
, . ).
[C.K. THAKKER, J.]
/.
I
;7 ..The respondent-wife filed a written statement contro-· A
verting facts and denying allegations levelled (!gainst her by the
appellant-husband. It was stated by her that the appellant-hus-
baiid tfad neither.provided maintenance to the respondent-wife
')1 , I ~ ·•'. . . '. ! . . . ·~

nor to the
·. ; I .~:
l. · :
children.' She
•. ) f 1 ,· . '· •
denied that her conduct . towards
1 ·
her
·• ~ husband and his family members was not proper and that she B
~-l ". ;>-l>.
'!...' '' I~· __. - • ' " - - '- •

dkl,~ot wc;int to st,ay with ,the f§lmily members of the h~sband. All
such allegations were made only with a view to taking divorce
t from me rekp6naent-wife. It was denied that the wife' deserted.
the li'usb1in9 wjt~~ut;__sufficient cause. . . .-
.. ~ . .
,'.1
r 8. She also refuted the allegation of having deprived the c
husband of matrimonial enjoyment and she had subjected him
(husband) to physical as well as-mental cruelty and torture. She
denied that prestige of the husband had· been badly affected in
the society because of the conduct of the respondent-wife. She
, -f stated that her husband took away all the ornaments, jewellery D
and garments from her. Though sufficient amount of dowry was
given to the husband,
. still he was insisting for ' additional amount ;

.... and other articles .

9. She also stated that she was staying ~t Malegaon, Dis-
trict Nasik in Maharashtra which was at a distance of about E
400 kms. from the city of Ujjain. Parents of the respondent-wife
were very old. Business of her father was closed. Her brot.hers
had been working separately and were maintaining their own
f?milies: .She had, therefore, to travel at such along distance all
• -f alone which was very difficult She also contended that Ujjain F
;
I Court had no jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the peti-
~ tion, A prayer was, therefore, made to dismiss HMA with costs.
,
~
I 1O:·Proceedings were also initiated by the respondent-
-· ' '
1

.
... wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
1973 at Malegaon for maintenance as also under Section 24' G
of the, Hindu Marriage Act at Ujjain. We are, however, not con-
- t cerned with those proceedings in the present case.
11. It may be stated that the respondent-wife also filed an
application under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal
H
1064 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.
'.
A rights in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Malegaon
being HMP No. 42 of 2005 on March 23, 2005.
12. Immediately thereafter, the wife preferred an applica-
tion under Section 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') in the High Court of ... ~
B Madhya Pradesh (Indore Bench) for transfer of Ujjain case in-
stituted by the husband being HMA Petition No. 164A of 2004
titled Durgesh Sharma v. Smt. Jayshree Sharma pending in
the Family Court at Ujjain to a Court of competent jurisdiction at
Malegaon, District Nasik in the State of Maharashtra.
c
High Court's Order
13. The High Court vide the impugned order dated Janu-
ary 25, 2007 allowed the application and transferred HMA 164A
of 2004 pending the Family Court, Ujjain to a competent Court
D at Malegaon through District Judge, Nasik. It is this order which ~ .
is challenged in the present appeal.
14. Notice was issued on May 14, 2007 and further pro-
ceedings were stayed. Considering the nature of litigation, the
matter was ordered to be placed for final hearing and that is
E how the matter has been placed before us.

Submissions of counsel
15. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

F 16. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that ,. -
the High Court was wholly wrong in transferring a case pending
in a Court subordinate to the said High Court to a Court subor-
dinate to another High Court. A High Court does not possess
that power and as such, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
could not have transferred a case to a Court sub.ordinate to the
G
High Court of Bombay. On that ground alone, the order passed
by the High Court deserves to be set aside. It was also submit-
ted that even on merits, no ground for transfer of case was made ~ -
out by the respondent-wife.
H 17. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other
DURGESH SHARMA v. JAYSHREE 1065
[C.K. THAKKER, J.]

hand, submitted that the order passed by the High Court is in·"- A-_
consonance with law. It was urged that if the High Court is satis-
fied that a proper case has been made out for transfer of a
case from a Court subordinate to the said J:-iigh Court to a Court
subordinate to different High Court, in exercise 9f power under
sub-section (3) of Section 23 of the Code such order cah be B
made.

18. On the facts of the case, it would be very difficult for
the respondent-wife to travel a distance of about 400 kms. all
alone and hence discretion was exercised by the High Court. ,
This Court, in the exercise of power under Article 136 of the C
Constitution may not interfere with the said order. It was, there-
fore, submitted that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

$fatutory provisions
• _, 19. Before we deal with rival contentions and case-law on D
. the point, it would be appropriate if we notice the relevant provi-
sions of the Code.
20. Sections 22 to 25 enact law as regards transfer and
withdrawal of suits, appeals and other proceedings from one E
Court to another Court. ·

21. As a general rule, the plaintiff as arbiter litis or domi-
nus litis has a right to choose his/her own forum where there is
more than one Court in which such suit may be instituted. Nor-
. i mally, the defendant cannot insist that instead of Court A, the F
plaintiff should file a suit in~ Court B. But the right of the plaintiff
to choose a forum is not arbitrary, absolute or uncontrolled and
in appropriate cases, a superior Court may transfer a case
pending in one Court to another Court. '
22. Section 22 provides that where a suit may be insti- G
tuted in one of two or more Courts and is institµted in one of
such Courts, a defendant may apply to have the suit transferred
to another Court.
23. Section 23 provides the forum where such application H
1066 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13S.C.R.

A may be made. It is material to the controversy in question and
may be reproduced;

23. To what Court application lies.
(1) Where the several Courts having jurisdiction are
subordinate to the same Appellate Court, an
application under section 22 shall be made to the
Appellate Court.

(2) Where such Courts are subordinate to different
Appellate Courts but to the same High Court, the
C.. application shall be made to the said High Court.

(3) Where such Courts are subordinate to different High
Courts, the application shall be made the High
Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the
~Eurt in which the suit is brought i~ situate.

Vf (emphasis supplied)

24. Section 24 contains general power of transfer of any
suit, appeal or other proceeding at any stage on the applica-
E ~ tion of a party or by a Court suo motu (of its own motion).
25. Section 24, as originally enacted in the Code of 1908,
read as under:
" 24 - General power of transfer and withdrawal
Section

F1
-·
(1) On the application of any of the parties and after notice· ,. .
to,th.e partie$ and after hearing such of them as desired
to t>e heard, or of its own motion without such notice, the
High Court or the District Court may at any stage-
(a) transfer any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending
G· ~- before it for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate
J to it and competent to try or dispose of the same, or
(b) withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceeding -f -
pending in any Court subordinate to it, and
.'
H ··~ (i) try or dispose of the same; or
DURGESH SHARMA v. JAYSHREE · 1067
[C.K. THAKKER, J.]

(ii) transfer the same ·for trial or disposal to any A
Court subordinate to it and competent to try or
dispose of the same;· or · · • · <'
. ,. . -;.: . .\' • ~' +, .~.. ' '' ''. :
(iii) retransfer the same. for trial o.r disposal to the
Court froni' which it was withdrawn. ·
B
(2),Where any suit or proceeqing has been transferred or
., , • withdrawn under subsection (1)·. the Couriwhich thereafter
tries such s'uit may, subject to any special directions in the
:Jc ' • ... . .• ·' ' ... ~, . ..... ·h\
case of an order of transfer, either retry 1t or proceed from
._;.the poiht at which it was transferred orwithdrawn. . 0
{. ·•. v.(3) For the purp~~es 'of thi~ sectici~'.. Courts ofA'ddidJtria1
.\. ··' . l ' ' .... ' , :,...., 111'~

and Assistant Judges shall be deemed.to be subordiria.te
'' 'to .the District Court.. · . :_· . · · · : ' · · '· ·,. 0 ·vuuc:
v , i . t.s '_,., ·; ·•.... · ~ ·1r. ~
1
~ -f ···f]BJGV'"c-
(4) The Court trying any suit transferred or withdrawmunder
0
. . . this section from a Court of Small Causes shall,-for the
- c purposes of such suit, be deemed to'be a' Court· oi'sma11.
.. : 1 ·1.,, • ~ ,.,111 . 'I - . ' I• 111 0 ~l.JC::t!! U'

..
r:...
Causes.
r ~. ,, )
.'""' ,1, - .0 IU- 1G~:H,,'Jqg
26. There was a cleavage of opinion on the·1questiori
whether a•-.)"case 'could
~.· '
.be
'\.J•I
transferred
1'
from a Court .having
(,,,I·,_. I(,
no ·:1'.•r~
B
jurisdiction to try it. Some High Courts1 • have .
held.that
·1l_l1i
the lan- i<'j\_·~ 1·~.f!

guage of Section 24 was very wide and there was no" restric-
tion on the High Court in exercising the power oftranSfe(merely
because there was a dispute regarding jurisdiction:· Some·other
High Courts, however, took a contraryview. The~LawGommis" R
sion ·considered the question and suggested)arriendmehhthat
a suit or proceeding could be transferred under.this section.from
a Court which had no jurisdiction to try it. b ;
J JD S ¥.. 1'w\'$1·, ....,(.,
r · 27. In the Statement of Objects and Reasdns~itwas:stated~;
Clause 10-There is a conflict of decisions with !e~g rd
1
'f6 e
the question whether Section 24 applies dn :relation to a
.transfer of a suit from a Court which¢1as no:jurisaiction:to
try it. The High Court of Andhra P.radesh has held thatthe
language of Section 24 is veryJwide:rand~tbere~,c!lfe na H
1068 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.
-\- ~

"
A restrictions or impediments in the way of the High Court
exercising the power of transfer merely because there is
..
a dispute regarding jurisdiction. Some other High Courts
have taken a contrary view. It is being clarified that a case
may be transferred from a Court which has no jurisdiction
B to try it. ~ 4

28. Parliament considered the recommendation of the Law
Commission and by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment)
Act, 1976, the section was amended in the present form. 1

c 29. Sub-section (1) of Section 24 as now stands, enables
a High Court (or a District Court) to transfer or withdraw any
suit, appeal or other proceeding pending before it or in any Court
subordinate to it. Such transfer can be made by the Court at
any stage of the proceeding either on an application of a party
or suo motu.
D ......
30. Sub-section (2) empowers the Court ordering transfer
to issue directions for de novo trial or to proceed with the suit,
appeal or other proceeding from the point at which it was trans-
ferred or withdrawn.
E 31. Sub-section (3) defines 'proceeding' which includes
an 'execution proceeding'.
32. It declares that Courts of Additional and Assistant
Judges will be deemed to be subordinate to the District Court.
F Sub-section (4), likewise, states that the expression "Court of .....
Small Causes" includes courts vested with the powers of a Court
of Small Causes.
33. Newly added sub-section (5) clarifies that a suit or pro-
ceeding can be transferred from a Court which has no jurisdic-
G tion to try it.
34. Section 25, as originally enacted in the Code of 1908,
enabled the Governor-General in CoL•ncil to transfer, in certain .+ .
circumstances, a suit, appeal or other proceeding from one High
Court to another High Court and read thus:
H
DURGESH SHARMA v. JAYSHREE 1069
'> > [C.K. THAKKER, J.]

25. Power of State Government to transfer suits-(1) A
Where any party 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 Governor-General in Council, B
who may, by notification in the Official Gazette, transfer
such suit, appeal or proceeding to any other High Court;

(2) The law applicable to any suit, appeal or proceeding
so transferred shall be the law which the Court in which the
stilt, appeal or proceeding was originally instituted ought C
to have applied to such case.

35. The section was amended by the Government of India
(Adaptation of Indian Laws) Order, 1937. In sub-section (1 ), for
the words "Governor-General in Council" and "who", the words
0
"State Government" and "which" were substituted.
36. Proviso to sub-section (1) was inserted, which read
as under;
Provided that no suit, appeal or proceeding shall be
transferred to a High Court without the consent of the State E
' Government ofthe State in which that High Court has its
principal seat.
31. Plain reading of the above provision makes it clear
~ ··~ that scope and applicability of Section 25 was very much lim- F .
ited. It enabled the State Government (earlier Governor-Gen-
eral in Council) to exercise power by effecting transfer from one
High Court to any other High Court. The Law Commission con-
sidered the provision as it originally enacted. It felt that the State
.Government could not be said to be an appropriate agency for G
exercising power of transfer of suit, appeal or other proceeding
inasmuch as exercise of such power was a 'judicial function'.
~ ~ The Commission also noted that an analogous provision was
made in Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
which empowered the Supreme Court to transfer cases and H
1070 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.
I.. ~

A appeals from one Court to another Court. It accordingly recom-
mended that such wide powers of transfer should not be re-
tained by the State Government but should be conferred on the
Supreme Court.

38. The recommendation was accepted. In the Statement
~
B of Objects and Reasons, it was stated: '

Clause 12.-Section 25 of the Code empowers the State
Government to transfer suits etc. in certain circumstances
from the High Court exercising jurisdiction in the State to
another High Court. This section is very narrow in scope
c as it provides only for the transfer of suit, appeal or other
proceeding pending in a High Court presided over by a
Single Judge. Besides, the State Government. does not
seem to be an appropriate agency for exercising the
power of transfer. Section 25 is, therefore, being substituted
D by a new section which provides for the transfer to the lo- •
Supreme Court the existing power vested with the State
Government and to confer on th~ Supreme Court such
wide powers of transfer as it has in criminal cases under
Sect!on 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
E Further, the new section covers transfer of cases from or
to the original side of a High Court to or from any other
Civil Court. The new section is thus wider in scope than
Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

F
39. Accordingly, Section 25 was substituted in the present
form which reads as under: ...
25. Power of Supreme Court to transfer suits, etc
(1) , On the application of a party, and after notice to the
parties, and after hearing such of them as desire to
G 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 4' r
or other Civil Court in one State to a High Court or
H . other Civil Court in any other State.
51 .) 0 - • 3·_. · DURGESH:SHAHMA v. 'JAYSMREE - " 5;'1071
[C.K. THAKKER, J]

n; n (2);_ Every appli~ation:Uflder this section shaltbe1made f::A
,~ . · ,. :~u,. by a motion which shall·be supp_0rted:byari:a:ffidayit.

;, I r; ~3) . The Court to which sucii' suil app€aJ'ofotRer7'fO~~dlhg
~, .·, .~;,i·~ · .~ c: is.!r~n~ferr~d. sh?)!. :;'obi~f\ t.O.'~~Y.~P~.B!'c{difi~;Yfi~n~~n
~· ·' ' 1. "the order of transfer, either retry itor !)rocee~ frorn'ttie
. '.Jil tl ; , faage gt which 'it was transferred to iC nn.: I' r,r;.o·:~L.
1 0 1
FB
t. '1 2SV/ f ~'1&~; ~ _,._~ 1: ~I ·' ~f-f 'lJl•0 'J''> ,'-,~ ';~/lPH1d .l1 :1:.JOJ

;:'\ ro:l·iU2· In dipmissing .any application under this section/the
.1 .. • u;_ •r 1·$up.reme:.Courhmay, if:: it is1.of .opini.on1.fhat!the
t ··o J r, ,+ application~,w.as 1ifrivolous or:::iy:exatiousi;;ordendhe
,,,!f 'O r,.<: appliCO!nhto pal{) by way.lot cornpen·sationictocany ~C
person who has opposed the application such ·sum,
not exceeding two thousand rupees, as it considers
•:i2; '~n·)•~appropriate iH fi-i$ circumstat:i1e~i.6f tf1g c9s~.
1

fGrli tJ'.J,' :~;.-·-. ''ilJ["°' :11r ,._· ·· 1~ 01~. "°H ~~· '-,.,..Q\)'"J c:,;,: to .C ~ O; ~~ tC'O:~
1 _' .• '. 1

1Fitzn;(5k ,The ;:law· applicable-to any ·suit,1· appeal ocother
1s i•c ct 11, prnceed~ng transferred under this 1section-shall: be (0
the law which the Court;inw~ich.the suit;:appe<!l:'or
other. proceeding was originally instituted ought to
~de rtur::"1, .·;1 q~ .. · _(:',r'1 ~ •. ~ 1•1n~... "1u.1c\1_=~ : -~"-
·-I·.' _,,•,"
have applied to such suit, appeal or proceeamg.
') ;V 12'2
Case law . .
n.irlw ol lluoJ · J ;::os Jr'. 3<:nrU '":..nu,· i<c HtJr1 <~ : n• .::./' ~ :E
sieri'.':49- Having cQnsider:eo statutoryprovisions,:this is now the
,Jime1~qTefer)oJew deci$iOns;on the point:;The ,issue,•tin our
~opir:iion,,c,O!n GQnvenientlybe.discussed~·in two stages;.:J

~ 11 ::··(f) 1511 1:>01iiti0.·11~ :Hho."r".to -c-ode . of. c1.·vJ :1P-r'o.6edure
ei.i (JJ 0 11 'a'{.a;lri&ndm~h1)
gr;iVGri ;;>J~d~J 1 .-,~·1~~td
A:6i, 1·975:
:.-Jf't't
.and ·''" '· "·
':.-·~ 0
.-1 t'n8 (f_.,
1
:· :':. •
•1dt) ..) n~ic
0 < r
ng;H t(iik~'ll)'osition- after,dhe, :Code' OfiCivil< P-:rocedu re
twoJ '{'r~ (Ar:nendrrient)Act;:tt976:'•1::;;'1qs e.11 ~r. ~ .~.:i
18
' "d "(ij'P6sitl6'1l r't}&?to'Ailierldment Ace 1976~·h, 2r:·; Sr!
·~'>("·.P ..... ~ r~
tl •u c"'
~-'
-)r1·
' 'c..-_...-:;: ..... . ..; -·
,
....
.... '
, .....
.. ,
. '·
'""'I t
' ' L.i
-t. " I . , , ••,
• .,1J .....
G
(.. '

es r c41:-The. first case on the.point appears to be of,AbwBakar
tAP'dul,Rahiman &-co.1V:·Rambux, AIR 1916 Nagpur,3t :40 IC
~3~a11Jhe·Court·of,.Juditial1Gommissioner, Nagpur was::called
'upon to consi~er the question,Whether.a High,Court can trans-
fer1acase. from a-Court subordinate to it to.a Court-subordinate
I f;I
1072 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.

A to another High Court. In that case, plaintiff R was carrying on
business at Khamgaon in West Berar. Defendant A was a firm
carrying on business in Bombay. R filed a suit against A in the
Court of Subordinate Judge, Khamgaon for recovery of
Rs.5,000. An application was made by A to the Court of the
B Judicial Commissioner, Nagpur to transfer the suit to the High "" •
Court of Bombay on its original side. The application was pur-
ported to have been made under sub-section (3) of Section 23
of the Code. The contention of R was that the Court of Judicial
Commissioner, Nagpur could not transfer a case to a Court
c subordinate to other High Court or to the Original Side of the
other High Court.

42. The Court considered the relevant provisions (Sec-
tions 22 to 25) of the Code, upheld the contention and ruled that
the Court of Judicial Commissioner, Nagpur could not transfer
D a suit to a Court subordinate to other High Court or to other ~ •
High Court on its Original Side.
4:1. Interpreting Section 23 of the Code, the Court ob-
served;

E "Section 23 indicates under three heads the Court to which
an application under Section 22 is to be made. (1) Where
the several Courts are Subordinate to the same Appellate
Court, the application goes before the latter; (2) where the
several Courts are subordinate to different Appellate Courts
F but to the same High Court, the application must go to the
High Court; and (3) where the several Courts having
jurisdiction over the suit are subordinate to different High
Courts, the application must be made to the High Court
having authority over the Court in which the suit has been
instituted. In the first two of these cases, the Court
G
empowered to decide under Section 22 also has
jurisdiction to transfer under Section 24. But in the third
case there is no power of transfer, and the question is
whether Section 22, under which the application to be
made is one for transfer, can be interpreted to mean that,
H
DURGESH SHARMAv. JAYSHREE 1073
~ ,\
[C.K. THAKKER, J.]

in a case like the present, the Court to which the application A
is made, being powerless to transfer, may nevertheless
direct that the plaint be returned to the plaintiff for

. ...,
presentation to some Court under another provincial
. jurisdiction".
(See also Topan Harji & Co. v. Singhai Da/chadn & Anr.; B
AIR 1924 Nag 152 : 75 IC 548).
44. In Ram Kumar v. Tula Ram Nathu Ram, AIR 1920
Patna 138 (2) : 56 IC 920, the question was whether the High
Court of Patna could transfer a suit from Purulia Court subordi- c
nate to the High Court of Patna to a Court subordinate to the
High Court of Bombay.
45. Disagreeing with the view in Abu Bakar, the Court held
that such an order could be passed. "An order of a High Court
' ~ under Section 22, that the suit shall proceed in a Court subordi- D
nate to another High Court, will be final and it will not be open to
another High Court to refuse the suit being tried in the Court
subordinate to it having jurisdiction to try it".
46. In Or. Rajnath v. L. Vidya Ram & Ors., AIR 1953 All
772, it was observed that Section 23 of the Code is not an in- E
dependent section. It is supplemental to Section 22. Section
24 is a general provision empowering the High Court or the
District Court to transfer a case on the motion of any other party
or on its own motion. Section 23 merely lays down the forum in
~ ~
which applications under Section 22 are to be made . F

. 47. In Firm Kanhaiyala/ v. Zurtierlal, AIR 1940 Nag 145:
190 IC 439, the Court held that a High Court can transfer a suit
pending in a Court subordinate to that High Court to a Court
subordinate to another High Court. The Court held that Section
G
22 confers power on a Court to transfer a suit pending in a sub-
ordinate Court to a Court subordinate to another High Court
~.~
and Section 23 provides forum to which an application may be
made.
48. In that case, a suit was brought in a Court subordinate H
1074 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.
( ~

A to the High Court of Nagpur and transfer was sought to a Court
subordinate to the High Court of Calcutta by filing an applica-
!ion in the High Court of Nagpur. The Court, overruling Abu Bakar
held that such a transfer could be effected.
49. In P Salayandi Nadar & Ors. v. Venugopala Chetty &
B Ors., AIR 1960 Ker 91 : ILR 1959 Ker 180, the High Court of "' •
Kerala held that a High Court has power to transfer a suit pend-
ing in a, Court subordinate to it to a Court subordinate to an-
other High Court.
,
c competency
50. It may, however, be noted that the Court stated that the
of the. petition was not objected by the opposite
party.
51: In Western UP Electric Power Supply Company Ltd.
v. Hind Lamps Ltd., (1969) 2 SCWR 16: 1969 UJ (SC) 54, A
D filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge at Mainpuri (U.P.) against .... .
B for recovery of amount. B also filed a suit against A in the
Court of Senior Sub Judge, Delhi for certain amOLint. B filed an
application in the High Court of Allahabad for transfer of suit
filed by Aand
'.
pending in the Court of Civil Judge at Mainpuri to
E the Court of Sub-Judge at Delhi. The application was allowed
and_ the suH was transferred. A applied for recalling of the order
conten9in9 that condition precedent to the application of Sec-
t1ons 22 ~nd 23 of the Code did not exist and the High Court
had no jur[sdiction to transfer the suit pending in Mainpuri Court
F to the Cou(t not subordinate thereto. The High Court, however, t •
rejected the prayer. A approached this Court.
52. This Court, in the order, expressly noted that at the
hearing b~fore the High Court, the counsel for A conceded that
the High Court of Allahabad had jurisdiction to transfer Mainpuri
G suit to ther··court of Special Judge, Delhi. Taking into account
the above concession before the High Court, this Court refused
t'o interfere1with the order passed by the High Court transferring
a'suit from ~ Court subordinate to the High Court of Allahabad 4 -

to a Court subordinate to a different High Court (High Court of
H Delhi),
DURGESH SHARMA v. JAYSHREE; -·~. 1075
[C.K. THAKKER, J.]
• • • • ..;.}~..>A
53. In para 6, this Court stated; ...... j • I ··1. . •

'. .·~· Y' 4 _,,.·"".

"It may be conceded that some other parts of the. evidence , , . ,• I•< 'L'·· f ·~~~ ..)._"!! ...;<,_

of the witnesses are inconsistent with.the
• . · · > .
statement made I~
0

V•. ~ -, ; ,: t.li ·,I '.... .. .)

by him. The learned Civil Judge.accepted the te~timony ,
and made a report to th~ H}gh Court. th<~t Hin9.~~~P~\td.:~~ !::!
had a place of business in Delhi. At t.he heari~g .Coyn,~~I "
8
, for the Appellant, conceded that the High. Court had .
IJ • ,L ' • • ..... • > • ("~ ' ~,' .,

jurisdiction to transfer the suit. It would be reasonable
' . . ' ' •1 , • 11\_, . _,..
to "· l) ;~ ,_~ · ·

infer that the Appellant admitted that because the
~ · respondent·had a branch office in Delhi the Higti Court of
Allahabad had jurisdiction to transfer the Mainpuri suit-in· ·C ·
exercise of the power under Section 22 read with-Section ··
-· 23(3) of the Code of Civil procedure. Sitting· in appeal
with Special Leave,· we would not be justified iri 'ignoring '"
the concession made at the bar by Counsel' for 'fhi:f·_
Appellant. We are unable to accept the contention that ou
Counsel merely admitted that jurisdiCtion "under SeCtions
22 and 23(3) was exereisable'by !Jhe •High: Court; but
denied the existence of the conditions precedent tO'the
exercise of the jurisdiction". --:, '°'•' " r;;
. . :· .,1 .. '•,.>' E-=i
• "'L. ... .. (e,mph~si~.-
.....
supplied) -~, ~

54. In our opinion, the above case does not help the re-
spondent-wife. The'case was'·decii:led cin concession on be-
halfof the plaintiff that an· order of transfer could be passed by a
High 'Court transferring a 'suit from a· Coui't•subordinate·to the F'
said'Court to :a Court subordinate to another Hig'h Court. It did
not-lay down':a'propositioh"?of lav./that• uneer.the Code, a High
Court can transfer-a suit, ·appeaf'or-icitfler?proceeding pending
in'a Court slibordirfate:to0that Gb'urt to•a·court•subordinafe to
another ~Hgh Court: Moreover,)tf'ie'.C''cfse h-ad been decided prior
to::.the am-enament in Seetl6ri; 25' of the· Code by the Amend-
ment Act, 1976.•uoJ erli ct.· 1nlcrw ,r ~. ..-_ , ' '•' , ,
.i:...1- ·· ('dh;~l'-':1(' r.:· .... ,..,. r· ·.j,".11'J.C'<1!1C" .Qrh -,:rf·i 1·
55. In Staie ·Bar;ik.of.lndhi x ,M/s. $akpw; Industries
Faridabad (Pvt.) ud,', New 'OelhtAI Rl!1976 p~fi2-l'321: 'the 'state
Bank of. India 'filed a' 'suit fin:. the Alipo·re'~0ovrt:.in~we·st:B~IJgal H'1
1076 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.
( ,,,
A against the defendant-Company for recovery of loan amount of
Rs.53 lacs. The defendant Company also filed a suit in the
Ballabgarh Court in Punjab & Haryana for permanent injunction
restraining the petitioner Bank from interfering with the peace-
ful possession of its premises and its estates. Before settle-
B ment of issues in Ballabhgarh suit, the plaintiff Bank filed an ~
"
application before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana under
Sections 22, 23 (3) read with Section 151 of the Code for trans-
fer of suit from latter (Ballabhgarh) Court to former (Alipore) Court.
56. Observing that the same questions of law and fact were
c involved in both the suits and the parties were also the same,
the High Court ordered transfer of suit from Ballabhgarh Court
to Alipore Court. It was held that such order could be passed in
exercise of power under Section 23(3) read with Section 151
of the Code.
D
57. The Court stated;
., .
"The plain reading of this Section shows that in a situation
like the present, High Court can order transfer of the case
to some other Court under the different High Court.
E Moreover, under Section 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure every court has the inherent jurisdiction to pass
any order to meet the ends of justice. In Pragji Soorji and
Co. of Bombay v. Kalu Mal Shari Mal and Co. of Amritsar,
AIH 1924 Lah 306, it has been held that the inherent powers
F under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be
used for the purpose of preventing or remedying grave
;. .
abuses. Same view has been taken in Datt Singh v. Tej-
daft Singh, AIR 1934 All 14. In the peculiar circumstances
of the present case, as the facts enumerated reveal, it
would meet the ends of justice and prevent the abuse of
G
the process of the Court if the case pending in the
Ballabgarh Court is transferred to the Court at Calcutta in
which the connected matter is pending between the
petitioner-Bank and the said Company".
"-
H [see also Jagatguru Shri Sankaracharya Jyotish
\
~
DURGESH SHARMA v. JAYSHREE 1077
" ,A [C.K. THAKKER, J]

Pithadhiswar Shri Swami Swaroopanand v. Ramji Tripathi A
Lal Bahadur Tripathi, AIR 1979 MP 50].
(ii) Position after Amendment Act, 1976
'
'. > -.. 58. As already stated, the Code was amended in 1976
with effect from February 1, 1977. Section 25, as originally en- B
acted in the Code of 1908 and amended by the Government of
' ·India (Adaptation of Indian Laws) Order, 1937 (which was for-
i
mal in nature}, was substituted by the Amendment Act, 1976.
The scope of amended Section 25 is very wide. It-empowers
the Supreme Court (this Court) to transfer any suit, appeal or c
other proceeding from one High Court to another High Court or
from one Civil Court in a State to any other Civil Court in an-
other State throughout the country. Bare reading of the section
clearly reflects the legislative intent. Plenary and extensive pow-
ers have been conferred on this Court under Section 25 as it
-~ ~ D
stands now.
59. No case has come up before this Court interpreting
the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 23 in juxtaposition
of Section 25 of the Code. There are, however, judicial pro-
nouncements by some High Courts. E
60. In Priyavari Mehta v. Priyanath Mehta, AIR 1980 Born
337, A-wife filed a matrimonial petition under Section 13 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against B-husband in the Court of
Civil Judge at Mussoorie (Dehradun) for divorce on the ground
' • 1 of cruelty. B appeared in response to the summons and filed . F
written statement. B then filed a petition for restitution of conju-
gal rights under Section 9 of the Act in the District Court, Nagpur.
A presented an application under sub-section (3) of Section 23
of the Code in the High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) for
transfer of suit instituted by Bin Nagpur to Mussoorie. The ap- G
plication was resisted mainly on the ground that th': : 1igh Court
of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) had no jurisdiction t , .nsfer a suit
-~ instituted in the Court at Mussoorie which was"' -.;curt subordi-
nate to other High Court.
H
1078 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 13 S.C.R.

A 61. The Court considered the provisions of Sections 22 to
25 as also Section 21A of the Hindu Marriage Act and held that
the Court had such power under sub-section (3) of Section 23 of
the Code. The Court negatived the contention of B that the
amended Section 25 of the Code superseded the power of the
8 High Court under sub-section (3) of Section 23 of the Code. Ac- y •
cording to the Court, in spite of amendment in Section 25 of the
Code by Amendment Act, 1976, the Legislature did not think it fit
to repeal sub-section (3) of Section 23 of the Code. The Court,
therefore, must interpret both the provisions harmoniously.
c 62. The Court stated;
i
"Shri Ghatpande, appearing for the non-applicant, argu.ed ~
that in view of the amended Section 25 of the Code the
powers of the High Court under Section 23(3) of the Code
stand superseded. l see no merit in this submission. Old
0 Section 25 of the Code empowered the State to transfer
civil suits etc. in certain circumstances from the High Court
exercising jurisdiction in the State to another High Court.
That section which was narrow in its scope has been
substituted by new Section 25 and it now provides for transfer
E of suits by the Supreme Court which power was earlier
exercised by the Government. The section now confers on
the Supreme Court such wide and plenary power of transfer
as it has in Criminal cases under Section 406 of the Cr. P.
C. irrespective of the fact whether the Court to which transfer
F is sought has or has no jurisdiction to try the suit, appeal or
other proceedings if it is satisfied that it is expedient in the
ends of justice so to do. Section 22 of the Code (which as
observed above has to be read along with Section 23)
applies where a suit in its entirety is cognizable by either of
the two Courts, that is, the Court in which the suit is instituted
G and the Court to which transfer is sought. It cannot, therefore,
be said that Section 23(3) of the Code stands superseded
or is rendered negatory in view of the amended Section
· 25 of the Code as submitted by Shri Ghatpande".
(emphasis supplied)
H
DURGESH SHARMA v. JAYSHREE: 1079
'! )_ [C.K. THAKKER, J.]

63. In Mamta Gupta v. Mukund Kumar Gupta, AIR 2000 A
-
' AP 394, the wife filed an application in the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh to transfer a case pending in the Family Court, City
Civil Court, Hyderabad to Family Court, Indore (M.P.). The ques-
tion before the High Court was whether such a transfer could
; ... be effected by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh by transfer- B
ring a case pending in a Court subordinate to it to a Court sub-
ordinate to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
64. Considering the provisions of sub-section (3) of Sec-
tion 23 and power of the High Court to effect transfer as also
Section 25 and power of the Supreme Court (this Court), the c
Court held that both the provisions must be given effect and the
power to transfer a case by a High Court under sub-section (3)
'
~

of Section 23 to a Court subordinate to different High Court
must be conceded. If it is not done, Section 23 (3) would be-
come redundant. D
~ -1
65. Referring to case law on the point, the High Court ob-
served;
"Therefore, the contention of the learned Couri$el for the
respondent that the power of High Court under Section E
23(3) is deemed to have been impliedly withdrawn
consequent on the introduction of new Section25 of Code
of Civil Procedure canl')ct be accepted. Admittedly, as on
date Section 23(3) continue to subsist on the statute books
along with Section 25. What is held by the Supreme Court F
• -.+
in Guda Vijayalakshmi's case (supra), that it had a wider
power of transfer, but at the same time it cannot be
construed that Section 23(3) became redundant. So long
as the provision subsists, it continues to yield power vested
in it. Merely because Section 25 confers the powers on
G
the Supreme Court to transfer the case, it cannot be
construed that Section 23 gets deleted. The Legislature
would have thought fit to do so, when new Section 25 was
-+-
enforced. Therefore, Section 23(3) and Section 25 have
to be construed in a harmonious way and by doing so, it
H
1080 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.
......
A can only be interpreted that it is for the party seeking transfer
either to choose the Forum under Section 23(3) or 25
depending upon his social, economic status. Option thus
vested with the party. But, to say that the party is precluded
from filing application under Section 23(3) after 1-2-1977,
B and that the party has to file an application only before the
Supreme Court under Section 25, would amount to
.. ~

emasculating Section 23(3). Both the provisions are
independent and option is left to the party approaching
the Court for transfer.
c (emphasis supplied)
66. Recently, in Lakshmi Nagdev v. Jitendra Kumar
Nagdev, (2004) 4 MPLJ 310, a petition was filed under Sec-
tion 23(3) of the Code in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh by
the wife seeking transfer of matrimonial suit filed by the hus-
D
band in the Court of Ill Additional District Judge, Katni (M.P.) to 'r ~

the Court of competent jurisdiction in District Durg in the State
of Chhattisgarh. The prayer was objected on the ground that no
such order could be passed which seeks transfer of a suit from
a Court subordinate to one High Court to a Court subordinate
E to other High Court.
67. Referring to· Firm Kanhaiyalal, Jagatguru Shri
Shankaracharya and Mamta Gupta, the Court held that such a
transfer could be effected.
F . 68. The Court said;
"tn the light of aforesaid judgments the objection about
""
maintainability of the petition deserves to be rejected ..
Section 23(3) of the CPC empowers the High Court to
transfer a suit pending in a subordinate court to a court
G
subordinate to another High Court, Section 21A of the
'Act' do not in any way exclude, affect or curtail the powers
of this Court under Section 23(3) of the CPC. The powers
J-
of the High Court under Section 23(3) and the Supreme
Court under Section 25 of the CPC are to be construed
H
DURGESH SHARMA v. JAYSHREE 1081
[C.K. THAKKER, J.]

harmoniously and parties are free to choose the forum A
either under Section 23(3) or under Section 25 of the
CPC".
(emphasis supplied)

69. Special reference may bE! made to a decision of this B
Court in Guda Vijayalakshmi v Guda Sekhara Sastry, (1981)
2 sec 646. In that case, A (wife) filed a suit for maintenance
against B (husband) in a competent Court in Andhra Pradesh.
On receipt of notice, B filed a divorce petition under the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 against A in Rajasthan Court. A filed a_trans- c
fer petition under Section 25 of the Code in this Court (Supreme
Court) for transfer of B's suit from Rajasthan to Andhra Pradesh.

70. This Court considered the provisions of Sections 24
and 25 of the Code prior to and after the Amendment Act of
1976 and also Sections 21 and 21-A of the Hindu Marriage D
Act, 1955 and held that a transfer petition under Section 25 of
the Code would be maintainable irrespective of the provisions
of Sections 21 and 21A of the Hindu Marriage Act which did not
exclude the jurisdiction of this Court under the Code. The Court
also doubted the correctness of the decision of the High Court E
of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) in Priyavari Mehta.

71. Having considered the scheme of the Code as
amended from time to time, in our judgment, the law relating to
transfer of cases (suits, appeals and other proceedings) is well-
settl;d. It is found in Sections 22 to 25 of the Code and those F
provisions are exhaustive in nature. Whereas Sections 22, 24
and 25 deal with power of transfer, Section 23 merely provides
forum and specifies the Court in which an application for trans-
fer may be made. Section 23 is not a substantive provision vest-
ing power in a particular Court to order transfer. G
72. In our considered opinion, where several Courts hav-
ing jurisdiction are subordinate to one appellate Court, an ap-
plication for transfer may be made to such appellate Court and
the Court may transfer a case from one Court subordinate to it H
1082 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.
).. .....
A to another Court subordinate to it. Likewise, where such Courts
are subordinate to the same High Court, an application may be
made and action may be taken by the High Court transferring a
case from one Court subordinate to it to any other Court subor-
dinate to that High Court. But where such Courts are subordi-
B nate to different High Courts, it is only the Supreme Court (this )>
•
Court) which may pass an order of transfer. In other words, if
two courts are subordinate to different High Courts, one High
Court has no power, jurisdiction or authority to transfer a case
pending in any court subordinate to that High Court to a Court
c subordinate to other High Court. It is only the Supreme Court
(this Court) which may order the transfer.

73. Section 45, as originally enacted in the Code of 1908
and the decisions prior to Amendment Act of 1976, have no
application after substitution of Section 25 as it stands today.
D To us, Section 23 has no application to such cases and the only
provision attracted is Section 25.
~ .
74. The language of Section 25 also supports the view
which we are inclined to take. Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of
the Code enacts t~at "On the application of a party", this Court
E may pass an appropriate order of transfer. Thus, Section 25 is
'self-contained Code' and comprises of substantive as well as
procedural law on the point. It allows a party to move the Court
by making an application as also it empowers the Court to make

F
an order of transfer.
75. The matter can be examined from another angle also .
,.. .
. Every Court has its own local or territorial limits beyond which it
cannot exercise the jurisdiction. So far as this Court is con-
cerned, its jurisdiction is not circumscribed by any territorial limi-
G tation and it extends over any person or authority within the ter-
ritory of India. But, it has no jurisdiction outside the country. So
far as a High Court is concerned, its jurisdiction is limited to
territory within which it exercises jurisdiction and not beyond it.
.f -
On that analogy also, a High Court cannot pass an order trans-
ferring a case pending in a Court subordinate to it to a Court
H
DURGESH SHARMA v. JAYSHREE 1083
[C.K. THAKKER, J.]

subordinate to another High Court. It would be inconsistent with A
the limitation as to territorial jurisdiction of the Court.
76. This can be compared with exercise of extraordinary ·
jurisdiction by a writ Court under Article 32 or 226 of the Consti-
tution. It is well settled that this Court can exercise power by
issuing writs, directions or orders to every authority within the 8
territory of India (as also those functioning outside the country
provided such authorities are under the control of Government
of India). But the jurisdiction of a High Court has territorial limi-
tations. It can exercise the power "throughout the territories in
relation to which it exercises the jurisdiction", that is to say, the C
writs issued by a High Court cannot run beyond the territory
subject to its jurisdiction and the person or authority to whom
the High Court is empowered to issue such writs must be within
those territories which clearly implies that they must be ame-
nable to its jurisdiction in accordance with law. D
77. The counsel for the respondent-wife submitted that
provisions of Section 23(3) and 25 of the Code should be har-
moniously construed. Referring to Priyavari Mehta, and
Lakshmi Nagdev, it was submitted that Section 23(3) of the
Code did not stand deleted or superseded by Section 25 of the E
Code. If it is held that for transfer of a case, appeal or other
proceeding from a Court subordinate to one High Court to a
Court subordinate to another High Court, only this Court can be
approached, Section 23(3) of the Code will become nugatory,
redundant and futile. No Court of law will interpret one provision F
of law which will make another provision superfluous or ineffec-
tive. It was, therefore, submitted thatit has been rightly held that
the parties must be left "to choose the forum" either under Sec-
tion 23(3) or 25 of the Code.
G
78. We are unable to uphold the contention. In our consid-
ered view, the fallacy in the argument lies in the fact that it pre-
sumes and presupposes that Section 23 of the Code is a sub-
stantive provision which authorizes a Court mentioned therein
to order transfer. It is not so. The said section, as held by us, is
H
1084 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R. ,l .,,..

A merely a procedural one or a machinery provision and pro-
vides mode, method or manner in approaching a Court for
making an application. It does not empower a Court to effect
transfer. Moreover, Section 25 of the Code is a 'complete Code'
dealing with substantive as well as procedural law. Section 23, ... '(

8 in our opinion, therefore, cannot be interpreted in the manner
suggested by the learned counsel appearing for the wife.

79. After the commencement of the Constitution and es-
tablishment of the Supreme Court (this Court), Parliament
thought it proper to amend Section 25 of the Code and accord-
c ingly, it was substituted by empowering this Court to order trans-
fer from one High Court to another High Court or to one Civil
Court in one State to another Civil Court in any other State. It is,
no doubt, true that even when Section 25 in the present form
was substitute!d by the Amendment Act of 1976, sub-section ....
D (3) of Section 23 of the Code has neither been deleted nor ~ '

amended. That, however, is not relevant. Since in our consid-
ered view, Section 23 is merely a procedural provision, no or-
der of transfer can be made under the said provision. If the case
is covered by Section 25 of the Code, it is only that section
E which will apply for both the purposes, namely, for the purpose
of making application and also for the purpose of effecting trans-
fer. On the contrary, reading of sub-section (3) of Section 23 of
the Code in the manner suggested by the learned counsel for
the respondent-wife would result in allowing inroad and en-
F croachment on the power of this Court not intended by Parlia- ~

ment. Section 23, therefore, in our considered view, must be
read subject to Section 25 of the Code. The decisions taking a
contrary view do not lay down correct law. We, therefore, over-
rule them. Even if such power was with a High Court earlier, it
stood withdrawn with effect from January 01, 1977 in view of
G
Section 25 of the Code as amended by Code of Civil Proce-
dure (Amendment) Act, 1976.
~ .
80. We are unable to agree with the view that in such cases,
inherent powers may be exercised under Section 151 of the
H Code as held by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in State
DURGESH SHARMA v. JAYSHREE 1085
.... >
[C.K. THAKKER, J.]

Bank of India. It is settled law that inherent powers may be ex- A
ercised ex debito justitiae in those cases, where there is no
express provision in the Code. The said power cannot be exer-
cised in contravention or in conflict of or ignoring express and
specific provision of law. Since the law relating to transfer is
'• ~
contained in Sections 22 to 25 of the Code, and they are ,ex-
/

B
haustive in nature, Section 151 has no application. Even that
contention, therefore, cannot take the case of respondent-wife
further.
81. For all these reasons, in our opinion, the order passed
by the High Court is not sustainable and deserves to be set c
aside. We hold that a High Court has no power, authority or
jurisdiction to transfer a case, appeal or other proceeding pend-
ing in a Court subordinate to it to any Court subordinate to an-
other High Court in purported exercise of power under sub-sec-
;. 4 tion (3) of Section 23 of the Code and it is only this Court which D
can exercise the said authority under Section 25 of the Code.
The order passed by the High Court, therefore, deserves to be
set aside and is accordingly set aside.
82. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case,
however, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. E

83. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
R.P. Appeal disposed of.
r -f