Transfer of suits and other proceedings (sections 22 to 25)

Civil Procedure Code and Limitation Act · Unit I · Topic 7 of 27 · 6 min read

The defendant's right to ask for transfer where several courts have jurisdiction (sections 22 and 23), the general power of the High Court and District Court to transfer and withdraw (section 24), the Supreme Court's inter-State power (section 25), the grounds courts accept, and the Mandya to Mangaluru problem.

← All Civil Procedure Code and Limitation Act topics Past papers

On this page

1. Section 22: transfer where several courts have jurisdiction
2. Section 23: to which court the application lies
3. Section 24: general power of transfer and withdrawal
4. Section 25: power of the Supreme Court
5. Problem
How this is examined

Cases checked to exist. Read the judgment before quoting a holding.

Every case cited here has been checked to exist — the citation resolves and names the right parties. The propositions attributed to each case have not been verified line by line against the judgment. Case names link through to the full judgment: read it before quoting a holding in an examination answer, and never carry a proposition from notes into court on trust.

The examinable core. Four sections, four different questions. Section 22: who may apply (only a defendant) and when (earliest opportunity). Section 23: to which court. Section 24: the general power of the High Court and District Court, on application or of their own motion. Section 25: the Supreme Court, from one State to another. In a problem, first find which of the four applies, then the grounds.

1. Section 22: transfer where several courts have jurisdiction

Where a suit may be instituted in any one of two or more courts and is instituted in one of them, any defendant, after notice to the other parties, may, at the earliest possible opportunity and, where issues are settled, at or before settlement, apply to have the suit transferred to another court. The court to which the application is made, after considering the objections of the other parties, determines in which of the several courts having jurisdiction the suit shall proceed.

The right belongs to the defendant because the plaintiff, as dominus litis, has already chosen among the competent courts.
The transferee court must itself be one where the suit could have been instituted.
The application must be made early; delay is a ground for refusal.

2. Section 23: to which court the application lies

Where the courts having jurisdiction are subordinate to the same appellate court, to that appellate court (section 23(1)).
Where they are subordinate to different appellate courts but the same High Court, to that High Court (section 23(2)).
Where they are subordinate to different High Courts, to the High Court within whose local limits the court in which the suit is brought is situate (section 23(3)).

3. Section 24: general power of transfer and withdrawal

On the application of any party, after notice and hearing, or of its own motion without notice, the High Court or the District Court may at any stage:

(a) transfer any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending before it to any court subordinate to it and competent to try it; or
(b) withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in any subordinate court and (i) try it itself, (ii) transfer it to another competent subordinate court, or (iii) retransfer it to the court from which it was withdrawn.

Further rules in the section:

The court which receives the case may retry it or proceed from the point at which it was transferred, subject to special directions (section 24(2)).
Courts of Additional and Assistant Judges are deemed subordinate to the District Court, and “proceeding” includes execution (section 24(3)).
A court trying a suit transferred from a Court of Small Causes is deemed to be a Court of Small Causes for that suit (section 24(4)).
A suit may be transferred under the section from a court which has no jurisdiction to try it (section 24(5), added in 1976).

The power is discretionary and is exercised with care, since the plaintiff ordinarily has the choice of forum. In Kulwinder Kaur v. Kandi Friends Education Trust, 2008 INSC 40, (2008) 3 SCC 659, the Court listed the considerations: balance of convenience or inconvenience to the parties and witnesses, the convenience of a particular forum, the issues raised, the reasonable apprehension of a party that justice will not be done, and the possibility of conflicting decisions where related proceedings are pending elsewhere. It added that the power should not be exercised lightly or to oblige a party merely because it would prefer another court.

Accepted grounds in practice: related suits pending in another court that should be tried together; a reasonable apprehension of bias (not a mere allegation); the convenience of parties and witnesses where the difference is substantial; and the interests of a weaker party, such as a wife in a matrimonial case or a defendant of limited means.

4. Section 25: power of the Supreme Court

Substituted in 1976. On the application of a party, after notice and hearing, the Supreme Court may, at any stage, if satisfied that it 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.

The application is by motion supported by an affidavit (section 25(2)).
The transferee court may retry or proceed from the stage reached (section 25(3)).
A frivolous or vexatious application may be dismissed with compensation up to two thousand rupees to the opposite party (section 25(4)).
The transferee court applies the law which the original court ought to have applied (section 25(5)).

Only the Supreme Court can transfer a civil case from one State to another. In Durgesh Sharma v. Jayshree, 2008 INSC 1096, (2008) 9 SCC 648, the Court held that a High Court has no power under section 24 to transfer a case pending in its State to a court in another State; that power lies with the Supreme Court under section 25. Most section 25 petitions in practice are matrimonial cases filed by wives, where the Court gives weight to the wife’s inconvenience in travelling to the husband’s forum.

Trap. Section 22 is available only to a defendant and only where the suit could have been filed in more than one court. A plaintiff who wants his own suit moved must apply under section 24. Students who answer a plaintiff’s problem under section 22 lose the marks.

5. Problem

‘A’ files a suit against ‘B’ in Mandya. Now ‘A’ wants to take transfer of his suit to Mangaluru. Advise him. (January 2026)

Issue. Whether a plaintiff can have his own suit transferred, under which provision, to which court, and on what grounds.

Law. Section 22 is confined to defendants. Section 24 allows any party to apply to the High Court or the District Court to transfer a suit to another court subordinate to it and competent to try it. Mandya and Mangaluru (Dakshina Kannada) lie in different districts, so the District Court at Mandya cannot send the suit to a court in Dakshina Kannada, which is not subordinate to it. Both are subordinate to the High Court of Karnataka. Kulwinder Kaur sets out the considerations; the plaintiff, having chosen Mandya, must show circumstances that make continuing there unjust or seriously inconvenient.

Application. A should apply to the High Court of Karnataka under section 24, after notice to B. He must show a sound reason: for example, that a related suit between the same parties is pending in Mangaluru, that the property or the witnesses are there, that he has since moved there and the hardship is real, or a reasonable apprehension that he will not get a fair trial in Mandya. A mere preference, or a change of mind about the forum he chose, will not suffice. The Mangaluru court must be competent by value and subject-matter; under section 24(5) it does not matter whether it would have had territorial jurisdiction originally.

Conclusion. A cannot use section 22. He may apply to the High Court under section 24, and will succeed only if he shows a substantial ground of the kind above. If the transfer is ordered, the Mangaluru court may proceed from the stage reached at Mandya or retry the suit (section 24(2)). Had the suit been in another State, only the Supreme Court under section 25 could move it.

How this is examined

As short notes: “Transfer of cases” (June 2025) and “Transfer of suits under CPC” (August 2024). As a problem: the Mandya to Mangaluru question (January 2026). For six marks, give one paragraph each on sections 22, 23, 24 and 25, with Kulwinder Kaur for the grounds and Durgesh Sharma for the inter-State rule.

Now try the real questions: Civil Procedure Code and Limitation Act past question papers.