High Court Allows Civil Revision Petition and Quashes Transfer Order in Property Dispute Cases. Court Holds Revision Under Section 115 CPC Maintainable Against Transfer Order Under Section 24 CPC as It Constitutes 'Case Decided' Where No Appeal Lies, and Transfer Would Unnecessarily Delay Time-Bound Proceedings.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU
  • 7
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute originated from two civil suits: O.S.No.1453/2024 filed by respondents for specific performance of an agreement dated 13.03.2023, and O.S.No.2897/2024 filed by petitioner No.1 for permanent injunction after purchasing the suit property from respondent No.3. The High Court had earlier directed disposal of both suits within one year in MFA No.6603/2024, which was later extended with costs imposed on respondents for causing delays through multiple applications and adjournments. Respondents filed Misc. Case No.785/2025 under Section 24 CPC seeking transfer of suits from CCH-2 to another court, alleging bias by the presiding officer. The Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge allowed the transfer petition. Petitioners challenged this order through civil revision petition under Section 115 CPC. The core legal issue was whether revision under Section 115 CPC is maintainable against a transfer order under Section 24 CPC. Respondents argued it was not maintainable, citing Kerala and Gujarat High Court decisions. Petitioners relied on Allahabad High Court Division Bench decision in Babusingh case. The court analyzed Section 115 CPC which empowers superior court to revise orders in 'case decided' in original suit or 'other proceedings' where no appeal lies. The court agreed with Allahabad High Court's interpretation that transfer application under Section 24 CPC is 'other proceedings' and order passed thereon is a 'case decided' as it finally disposes of the application. On merits, the court found respondents had not disclosed their transfer application when seeking extension of time before High Court, and the presiding officer's insistence on proceeding without adjournments was to comply with time-bound disposal directions, not bias. Transferring to another court would delay proceedings as the current presiding officer was conversant with facts. The court allowed the revision petition, quashed the transfer order, and directed the trial court to conclude proceedings within three months as per earlier directions.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Revision Jurisdiction - Maintainability of Revision Against Transfer Order - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Sections 115, 24 - Civil revision petition was filed challenging transfer order under Section 24 CPC - Respondents raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability - Court held that transfer application under Section 24 CPC is 'other proceedings' and order passed thereon is a 'case decided' as it disposes of the application finally - Since no appeal lies against such order, revision under Section 115 CPC is maintainable - Court agreed with Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in Babusingh case (Paras 7-10).

B) Civil Procedure - Transfer of Cases - Grounds for Transfer - Bias Allegations - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 24 - Respondents sought transfer alleging bias by presiding officer due to oral remarks and insistence on proceeding without adjournments - Court found presiding officer was trying to avoid unnecessary adjournments to comply with High Court's direction for time-bound disposal - Such action cannot be construed as bias - Transfer would delay proceedings as new judge would need time to understand facts - Held that matters should not be transferred (Paras 11-12).

Issue of Consideration: Whether a civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is maintainable against an order passed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure transferring suits from one court to another

Final Decision

Civil Revision Petition allowed. Impugned order dated 21.02.2026 passed by Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge in Misc.No.785/2025 is quashed and set aside. Trial court directed to conclude proceedings in O.S.No.1453/2024, O.S.No.2897/2024 and Misc. No.576/2024 within three months from next date of hearing as per order dated 28.11.2025 in MFA No.6603/2024.

2026 LawText (KAR) (03) 44

Civil Revision Petition No. 193 of 2026

2026-03-24

R Devdas J.

Sri. G.L. Vishwanath, Sr. Advocate for Sri. Sourabh R. K., Advocate for petitioners; Sri. Sreevatsa, Sr. Counsel for Sri. Rohan Hosmath, Advocate for R1 & R2; Sri. V. Seshu, HCGP for R4; Sri. Kartik for Smt. Vandana P.L., Advocates for R3

Ekta Kukreja, Anushka Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

M/S Srinivasa Trust, Kalpajadalavoi, D.A. Thejeshwari, Sub-Registrar Office of the District Registrar Shivajinagar

Nature of Litigation: Civil revision petition challenging transfer order of civil suits

Remedy Sought

Petitioners seek to set aside order dated 21.02.2026 passed in Misc No.785/2025 transferring suits from CCH-2 to CCH-30

Filing Reason

Assailing impugned order passed by Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge allowing transfer petition under Section 24 CPC

Previous Decisions

O.S.No.1453/2024 filed by respondents for specific performance; O.S.No.2897/2024 filed by petitioner No.1 for permanent injunction; MFA No.6603/2024 allowed in part by High Court directing status quo and disposal within one year; Order dated 28.11.2025 in MFA No.6603/2024 extending time and imposing costs on respondents; Impugned order dated 21.02.2026 allowing transfer petition

Issues

Whether civil revision petition under Section 115 CPC is maintainable against order passed under Section 24 CPC Whether transfer of suits to another court was justified on grounds of bias

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners: Transfer application was filed without disclosure to High Court; Presiding officer was trying to avoid adjournments to comply with time-bound disposal; More than 130 hearings have taken place; Transfer would delay proceedings Respondents: Civil revision petition not maintainable against transfer order under Section 24 CPC; Presiding officer made biased oral remarks; Transfer justified as respondents filed suit earlier

Ratio Decidendi

Transfer application under Section 24 CPC is 'other proceedings' and order passed thereon is a 'case decided' as it finally disposes of the application. Since no appeal lies against such order, civil revision petition under Section 115 CPC is maintainable. Transfer should not be allowed when presiding officer is conversant with facts and transfer would delay time-bound proceedings, especially when allegations of bias are unfounded.

Judgment Excerpts

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure assailing the impugned order passed by the learned Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge The Division Bench has held, while agreeing with the interpretation given to Section 115 by the Allahabad High Court earlier This Court is in respectful agreement with the decision of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court Such an action on the part of the Presiding Officer cannot be painted red, alleging bias

Procedural History

O.S.No.1453/2024 filed by respondents for specific performance; O.S.No.2897/2024 filed by petitioner No.1 for permanent injunction; MFA No.6603/2024 filed by respondent No.1 before High Court; High Court allowed MFA in part directing status quo and disposal within one year; Misc. Case No.785/2025 filed by respondents seeking transfer under Section 24 CPC; Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge allowed transfer petition on 21.02.2026; Civil Revision Petition No. 193 of 2026 filed before High Court under Section 115 CPC

Related Judgement
High Court High Court Allows Civil Revision Petition and Quashes Transfer Order in Property Dispute Cases. Court Holds Revision Under Section 115 CPC Maintainable Against Transfer Order Under Section 24 CPC as It Constitutes 'Case Decided' Where No Appeal Lies,...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court Quashes Committee Order Denying Caste Validity Certificate to Petitioner -- Relief Granted Based on Brother's Certificate Following Supreme Court Precedent in Thakur Scheduled Tribe Case