Second Transfer Application on Same Grounds is Not Maintainable: Punjab & Haryana High Court Clarifies Legal Position under Section 24 CPC

“High Court cannot sit in appellate or revisional jurisdiction over District Judge’s transfer order in a fresh application under Section 24” — In a significant ruling reiterating the settled jurisprudence on the scope and limits of transfer jurisdiction under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a second transfer application filed by the same party under identical facts, holding that such a recourse is not legally maintainable without challenging the earlier rejection order passed by the District Judge.

The Court was hearing TA-1199-2025 (O&M), Sharanjit Kaur v. Jagmohan Singh, wherein the applicant sought transfer of an execution petition pending before the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), SBS Nagar. The same transfer was earlier sought before the District Judge through TA-19-2025, which had been dismissed on 01.09.2025. Instead of challenging that order by way of revision under Section 115 CPC or under Article 227 of the Constitution, the applicant approached the High Court directly through a second transfer application under Section 24 CPC — a move that the Court declared procedurally unsustainable in law.

Justice Archana Puri, in a detailed and reasoned judgment, held: “Once an order is passed by the District Judge on a transfer application under Section 24 CPC, the party aggrieved cannot re-approach the High Court for the same relief under Section 24 without challenging the earlier order. The High Court cannot sit as an appellate or revisional court over such order in a second transfer application.”

The application had been filed by Sharanjit Kaur through her General Power of Attorney holder, Ms. Gurcharanjit Kaur. The applicant alleged bias and favouritism by the executing court, citing the fact that the son of the decree-holder was an advocate. She claimed the court was acting in concert with the opposite party to dispossess her from her property. However, similar grounds had been raised and considered in the earlier transfer application before the District Judge.

The respondent’s counsel, Mr. Vivek Salathia, restricted his objection to the maintainability of the second transfer petition, submitting that once the District Judge had decided the application on the same facts, the only remedy available was revision or writ, not a fresh application under Section 24 CPC.

Agreeing with the respondent, the High Court emphasized the mutually exclusive nature of the jurisdiction conferred under Section 24 CPC upon the District Court and the High Court. Citing a series of precedents including Sunita Devi v. Ram Kirpal, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Ram Swaroop Bajaj, Ariamma Sachariah v. Rose Elizabeth Kurian, and Babu Singh v. Raj Bahadur Singh, the Court observed: “The word ‘or’ in Section 24 CPC is disjunctive. It grants concurrent jurisdiction to both the District Court and the High Court, but it does not permit the same party to approach both courts successively for the same relief on the same cause of action. The District Judge’s order attains finality unless challenged through a legally permissible route.”

Justice Puri also referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kulwinder Kaur v. Kandi Friends Education Trust, noting that while transfer powers under Section 24 are discretionary and wide-ranging, they are not meant to be exercised in a manner that enables forum shopping or multiple bites at the same cherry.

Further elaborating on the legal position, the Court observed: “A second application under Section 24 CPC filed before the High Court, after rejection of the first application by the District Judge on the same cause of action, is not maintainable in law. The proper remedy is to challenge the District Judge’s order either by way of revision under Section 115 CPC or by invoking the constitutional powers under Article 227.”

The Court deliberately refrained from examining the merits of the applicant's allegations against the executing court, stating: “This Court consciously avoids delving into the merits of the earlier order passed by the District Judge since that order has not been challenged through the appropriate legal route. Unless the earlier order is questioned, it cannot be appraised or undone in a second transfer application.”

Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the transfer application as not maintainable but granted liberty to the applicant to pursue her statutory remedies in accordance with law. It also disposed of the stay application and other pending civil miscellaneous applications.

Concurrent Powers Do Not Permit Successive Transfer Applications

This ruling serves as a clear reaffirmation that Section 24 CPC does not permit successive transfer applications to be filed before different fora merely because the first was unsuccessful. Where concurrent jurisdiction is granted to two courts, forum selection is a one-time choice, and the rejection by one cannot be circumvented by applying to the other without challenging the original rejection order.

The decision brings procedural clarity to a commonly misunderstood area of civil litigation and prevents abuse of process through parallel or successive transfer attempts, upholding the sanctity of judicial orders and ensuring discipline in the exercise of transfer powers.

Date of Decision: December 09, 2025