Section 24(5) CPC Empowers Superior Courts To Transfer Suits Even From Courts Lacking Jurisdiction; Return Of Plaint Under Order VII Rule 10 Not Only Course: Allahabad HC

"Section 24(5), which specifically authorises transfer from a court lacking jurisdiction, cannot be rendered meaningless by holding that return of plaint under Order VII Rule 10 is invariably the only permissible course." Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling dated July 13, 2026, held that the power of a superior court under Section 24(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to transfer a suit is not curtailed by the fact that the suit was originally instituted in a court lacking inherent jurisdiction.

A bench of Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J. observed that Section 24(5) is a remedial provision specifically intended to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and procedural complications by enabling the transfer of a case to a competent forum, even from a court which had no jurisdiction to try it.

The petitioner, a tenant, challenged an order passed by the District Judge, Meerut, which transferred an eviction suit from the Judge, Small Causes Court (SCC) to the Court of an Additional District Judge. The transfer was sought because the suit's valuation exceeded the SCC Court’s pecuniary limit of Rs. 1,00,000. The petitioner contended that since the trial court lacked inherent jurisdiction from the inception, the entire proceedings were non est, and the only legal recourse available was the return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC.

The primary question before the court was whether the District Judge committed a jurisdictional error by exercising powers under Section 24(5) CPC to transfer a suit from a court lacking pecuniary jurisdiction. The court was also called upon to determine whether the evidence recorded by a court lacking jurisdiction is automatically rendered void or if it can be preserved through a transfer order.

Legislative Intent Behind Section 24(5) CPC

The Court observed that Section 24 of the CPC confers wide powers upon the High Court and the District Court to transfer or withdraw suits to secure the proper administration of justice. The bench emphasized that the provision is couched in the widest possible terms, authorizing transfer "at any stage" of the proceedings.

"The language employed by the Legislature is plain, unambiguous, and admits of no qualification. The provision itself contemplates a situation where proceedings are pending before a court lacking jurisdiction and nevertheless authorises the District Court to transfer such proceedings to the court competent to try the same."

Distinct Spheres of Section 24 and Order VII Rule 10

Justice Srivastava clarified the interplay between the power of transfer and the procedure for return of the plaint. The Court held that Order VII Rule 10 and Section 24 operate in distinct, though complementary, spheres. While the former provides a procedural mechanism for the presentation of a plaint before the proper forum, the latter empowers a superior court to remedy a jurisdictional defect by transferring the proceedings.

Court Rejects Mandatory Application Of Order VII Rule 10

The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that the return of the plaint is the "only" permissible course when a jurisdictional defect is discovered. It noted that such an interpretation would render Section 24(5) of the CPC otiose and redundant. The Court applied the legal maxim ut res magis valeat quam pereat, stating that every part of a statute must be interpreted to have an operative effect.

"To hold that the plaint must invariably be returned notwithstanding the existence of such an express statutory power would not only render Section 24(5) largely redundant but would also compel avoidable duplication of proceedings, thereby defeating the object of expeditious adjudication."

Validity of Evidence Recorded Prior To Transfer

Addressing the contention that evidence recorded by a court lacking jurisdiction is non est, the High Court pointed to Section 24(2) CPC. This provision authorizes the transferee court to either retry the suit or proceed from the stage at which it was transferred. The Court held that the statute itself contemplates the continuity of proceedings and leaves it to the discretion of the transferee court to determine if a de novo trial is necessary.

"The statute, therefore, itself contemplates continuity of proceedings after transfer and leaves it to the discretion of the transferee court to determine the appropriate course. Whether the evidence already recorded is to be acted upon, or whether any witness is required to be recalled or the trial is to commence afresh, are matters falling within the jurisdiction of the transferee court."

Substantive Justice Over Procedural Form

The Court concluded that the power of transfer constitutes a lawful method of remedying a jurisdictional defect. It observed that insisting on the return of the plaint in every single instance, despite the express language of Section 24(5), would amount to elevating procedural form over substantive justice.

"An interpretation compelling return of the plaint in every case, notwithstanding the express language employed in Section 24(5), would elevate procedural form over substantive justice and defeat the legislative object underlying the provision."

The High Court found no manifest illegality or jurisdictional error in the District Judge's order. It noted that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any prejudice caused by the transfer. Exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, the Court affirmed that the course adopted by the lower court was consistent with the scheme of the CPC. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Date of Decision: July 13, 2026