The Karnataka High Court has affirmed the view that no appeal lies against an order passed on a transfer application and but a Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC is maintainable.

The High Court was considering a Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure assailing the impugned order of the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge.

Referring to the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Babusingh and others v. Raj Bahadur Singh and Others (2021), the Single Bench of Justice R Devdas held, “ The Division Bench has therefore rightly held that a transfer application is ‘other proceeding’ and the order passed thereon is a ‘case decided’, because the order passed on the transfer application by the District Judge disposes it of finally. No appeal lies on the impugned order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, therefore, this Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC is maintainable.”

Senior Advocate G.L. Vishwanath represented the Petitioner while Sr. Counsel Sreevatsa represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The case, as set up by the petitioner, was that the petitioners purchased the suit schedule property from the respondents under a registered sale deed. However, since the respondents sought to interfere with the suit schedule property, the first petitioner filed a suit for a permanent injunction and obtained an ex parte ad interim order. The Trial Court, thereafter, confirmed the interim order, and aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed an application before the Court. The Court allowed the MFA in part and directed the parties to maintain the status quo till the disposal of the suit.

A Miscellaneous Case was filed by the respondents seeking the transfer of the two suits to any other court. The Miscellaneous Case filed by the respondents before the Trial Court alleged disobedience of the injunction order. The Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge passed the impugned order, allowing the petition filed under Section 24 of CPC while transferring the two suits and the miscellaneous petition for disposal in accordance with law.

Arguments

It was the case of the respondents that a civil revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC is not maintainable in respect of an order passed under Section 24 of the CPC.

Reasoning

The Bench concurred with the view of the Allahabad High Court in Babusingh (Supra), wherein it has been affirmed that the power conferred on a superior court in Section 115 of the CPC empowers the superior court to revise an order passed in a case ‘decided’ in an original suit or ‘other proceedings’ by a subordinate court where no appeal lies against the order.

“A transfer application under Section 24 of CPC, when allowed by the District Court, it amounts to final disposal of the proceedings. The proceedings under Section 24 though ancillary to the suit are judicial in nature, where the court has to consider the grounds for transfer urged by one party and opposed by the other, together with the material on record. The decision in that regard may not have any direct impact on the lis involved in the suit, appeal or other kind of proceedings, but a decision is to be judicially arrived at by the District Judge after due application of mind and hearing parties”, it added.

The Bench further noted that the Court was furious that its earlier direction issued on October 30, 2024 to dispose of the matters within a period of one year could not be accomplished on account of several interlocutory applications being filed by respondents and their non-cooperation in disposing of the matters within the time frame fixed by the Court. Accordingly, costs of Rs.50,000 were imposed on the respondents while extending the time by three months. The Bench was thus of the view that no fault could be found with the Presiding Officer in insisting the parties to go on with the matter and not granting adjournments. “Such an action on the part of the Presiding Officer cannot be painted red, alleging bias”, it noted.

Thus, holding that the matters could not be transferred to another court, the Bench allowed the Civil Revision Petition and quashed the impugned order. The Bench also directed the trial judge to conclude the proceedings within three months from the next date of hearing.

Cause Title: Ekta Kukreja v. M/s Srinivasa Trust (Case No.:Civil Revision Petition No. 193 Of 2026)

Appearance

Petitioner: Senior Advocate G.L. Vishwanath, Advocate Sourabh R. K.

Respondent: Sr. Counsel Sreevatsa, Advocates Rohan Hosmath, HCGP V. Seshu, Advocates Kartik, Vandana P.L.

Click here to read/download Order


Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.