Transfer Cures Pecuniary Jurisdiction Defect: Allahabad HC Upholds District Judge's Section 24(5) CPC Order

The Allahabad High Court held that a District Judge may transfer a suit filed before a court lacking pecuniary jurisdiction under Section 24(5) CPC, and that return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 is not the only permissible course in every such case.

Hon'ble Dr. Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, sitting singly at the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, dismissed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging a transfer order passed by the District Judge, Meerut. The District Judge had exercised powers under Section 24(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to transfer S.C.C. Suit No. 69 of 2020 (Alok Prakash v. Ramesh Chand Sachdeva) from the Court of the Judge, Small Causes Court, Meerut to the Court of the Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Meerut, after it came to light that the suit's valuation of Rs. 1,06,806.45 exceeded the pecuniary limit of the Small Causes Court. The tenant-petitioner had argued that transfer was impermissible in law and that the only available remedy was return of the plaint. The High Court disagreed, holding that Section 24(5) expressly authorises transfer from a court lacking jurisdiction and that treating return of the plaint as the sole remedy would render that provision redundant.

The Suit and the Jurisdictional Problem That Surfaced at Trial's End

The dispute involves a shop of approximately 255 square feet situated at premises no. 34, Banshipura (Classic Sports), Suraj Kund Road, Meerut City. Ramesh Chand Sachdeva, the landlord, filed S.C.C. Suit No. 69 of 2020 before the Small Causes Court, Meerut seeking eviction of his tenant Alok Prakash on the ground of default in payment of rent of Rs. 8,000 per month. The landlord-tenant relationship was not disputed.

Summons were served, Alok Prakash filed a written statement denying default, and Sachdeva filed a replication. Evidence reached its conclusion: Sachdeva examined himself as P.W.-1; Alok Prakash examined himself as D.W.-1 and produced two additional witnesses. With the suit posted for final arguments, the entire evidentiary record appeared closed.

It was at this late stage, on 06.10.2025, that Alok Prakash moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking to amend his written statement to incorporate a plea that the suit had been valued at Rs. 1,06,806.45, whereas the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court, Meerut extended only up to Rs. 1,00,000. The plaint valuation had therefore exceeded the court's pecuniary limit from the very day the suit was filed in 2020.

Sachdeva opposed the amendment application, contending it was not maintainable after the close of evidence. He then separately filed an application under Section 24(5) CPC before the District Judge, Meerut, praying that the suit be transferred to a court competent to decide it.

The Petitioner's Case Before the District Judge and the Transfer Order

Alok Prakash filed objections to the transfer application before the District Judge. His case was clear and goes to the heart of this litigation: Section 24(5) CPC can only be invoked where a suit was validly instituted before a competent court and a subsequent change of circumstances raises a jurisdictional question. It cannot apply, he argued, where the suit was incompetent from inception. A suit filed before a court inherently lacking pecuniary jurisdiction is a nullity; the trial conducted by such a court is void; and the only course open in law is return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for presentation before a court of competent jurisdiction. On this basis, he prayed for dismissal of the transfer application.

The District Judge, after calling for a report from the concerned court and the Munsarim, accepted Sachdeva's position. The impugned order dated 02.04.2026 recorded that the suit's valuation of Rs. 1,06,806.45 exceeded the Small Causes Court's pecuniary limit of Rs. 1,00,000. Holding that sufficient grounds existed, the District Judge transferred S.C.C. Suit No. 69 of 2020 to the Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Meerut under Section 24(5) CPC.

Alok Prakash then invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court under Article 227.

The Legal Issue: Section 24(5) CPC Versus Order VII Rule 10 CPC

Before the High Court, counsel for Alok Prakash pressed the same arguments. The proceedings before the Small Causes Court, including all evidence, were non est in law. Transfer of a void proceeding is not permissible; the District Judge committed a manifest jurisdictional error by purporting to cure a defect that went to the root of the court's competence. Return of the plaint, and only return of the plaint, was the legally permissible course.

The High Court identified the question with precision: whether the power under Section 24(5) CPC and the procedure under Order VII Rule 10 CPC operate to the exclusion of each other when a pecuniary jurisdiction defect is discovered, and what happens to evidence already recorded before an incompetent court.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Srivastava began with the text of Section 24(5) CPC. The sub-section expressly authorises transfer of a suit “from a court which has no jurisdiction to try it.” The court held that this language is plain and unambiguous. The Legislature has consciously contemplated exactly the situation before it: a pending suit in a court that lacks jurisdiction. The District Court's power to transfer in such cases exists as a matter of express statutory grant, not by implication.

The court applied the interpretive maxim ut res magis valeat quam pereat: every part of a statute must be construed so as to have operative effect. If return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 were held to be the mandatory and exclusive remedy in every case of pecuniary jurisdiction defect, Section 24(5) would be rendered largely redundant. That result, the court held, must be avoided.

Order VII Rule 10 and Section 24 were not treated as mutually exclusive. The court described them as operating in distinct though complementary spheres. Order VII Rule 10 provides one procedural route to the proper forum; Section 24 provides a separate statutory route by which the superior court may transfer the pending proceedings to a competent forum. Both provisions serve the same underlying object: ensuring the lis is ultimately decided by a court possessing jurisdiction. Neither eliminates the other.

On the argument that evidence recorded before an incompetent court is necessarily non est, the court pointed to Section 24(2) CPC, which specifically empowers the transferee court either to retry the suit or to proceed from the stage at which it stood transferred, subject to any special directions in the transfer order. The Code, therefore, itself envisages continuity of proceedings after transfer and entrusts the discretion regarding the prior evidence to the transferee court. Whether any witness is to be recalled, or the trial commenced afresh, remains for the Additional District Judge to determine. The transfer order does not foreclose that exercise of discretion.

The court also relied on its earlier decision in Shiv Shankar v. Mahavir @ Ghura Turha and Others (2026:AHC:53013), where an identical question had been addressed. In that case too, the court had held that provisions relating to return of the plaint are procedural and do not curtail the plenary transfer power under Section 24, and that transfer from a court lacking jurisdiction is a valid and legally sustainable mode of curing the jurisdictional defect. Where no prejudice is shown and the defect is remedied by a lawful order of transfer, insistence on return of the plaint elevates procedural form over substantive justice.

The High Court found no demonstrated prejudice to Alok Prakash arising from the transfer itself. His grievance was framed as a pure legal proposition — that transfer was impermissible. Once that proposition was rejected on the basis of the express language of Section 24(5) and the settled position confirmed in Shiv Shankar, no independent ground remained to find manifest illegality or jurisdictional infirmity in the District Judge's order.

Scope of Article 227 Jurisdiction

Justice Srivastava also addressed the limits of the court's supervisory power. Article 227 jurisdiction is intended to ensure that subordinate courts act within the bounds of their jurisdiction and in accordance with law. It is not appellate jurisdiction, and it does not permit the High Court to substitute its own view merely because another view might also be possible. In the present case, the District Judge exercised a jurisdiction expressly vested by statute and followed a course consistent with the Code of Civil Procedure. No patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional infirmity was demonstrated.

Order

The petition was dismissed on 13 July 2026. The order dated 02.04.2026 passed by the District Judge, Meerut in Transfer Application No. 732 of 2025, transferring S.C.C. Suit No. 69 of 2020 from the Court of the Judge, Small Causes Court, Meerut to the Court of the Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Meerut, was upheld. The Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Meerut is now seized of the eviction suit and will determine, in accordance with Section 24(2) CPC, whether to proceed from the stage of transfer or to conduct a fresh trial.