Prior Notice to Opposite Party Is a Condition Precedent Under Section 22 CPC, Rules Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Jabalpur Bench dismissed a transfer application filed without prior notice to the plaintiffs, holding that notice is a statutory prerequisite under Section 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure before any such application can be moved.

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, in an order dated 4 May 2026, dismissed a miscellaneous civil application seeking transfer of a civil suit from the Court of the 8th Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur, to a court of competent jurisdiction at Jabalpur. Justice Maninder S. Bhatti, sitting singly, held that the application was not maintainable because the applicant — a defendant in the underlying suit — had filed it directly under Section 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure without first issuing notice to the opposite party, which the provision expressly requires as a precondition. The order clarifies that the notice requirement under Section 22 CPC is not a procedural formality but a statutory obligation that must be fulfilled before the court's power to transfer can be invoked at all.

The Suit and the Transfer Application

Respondents No. 1 and 2 had instituted a civil suit, Case No. RCSA/0000025/2025 (Kalyan Singh Budhauliya v. Meenal Budhauliya), before the Court of the 2nd Civil Judge, Class-II, Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur. The suit sought reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction in respect of properties described in paragraph 2 of the plaint. The plaintiffs' claim rested on a Will dated 7 September 2021, under which they asserted title over the disputed properties.

The present applicant, Meenal Budholia @ Meenal Rehman, who is arrayed as a defendant in that suit, filed Misc. Civil Case No. 2556 of 2025 before the High Court under Section 22 CPC, seeking transfer of the suit to Jabalpur.

The applicant's counsel, Shri Ram Prasad Khare, argued that the respondents/plaintiffs had misrepresented their place of residence to the trial court by projecting themselves as residents of Village Kaudiya, Tehsil Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur. Several documents were placed on record to show that the respondents were, in fact, residents of Jabalpur. The Will itself, counsel pointed out, contained a recital identifying the plaintiffs as residents of South Civil Lines, Jabalpur. It was also submitted that the plaintiffs had approached Revenue authorities as Jabalpur residents, and that at the appellate stage the applicant had impleaded them with a Jabalpur address, which they accepted without objection.

Additionally, the applicant submitted that the suit properties were situated partly at Jabalpur and partly at Narsinghpur, and that the address shown in the plaint at Village Kaudiya corresponded to a dilapidated kachha house with no proper residential structure.

Respondents' Position

Shri Sandeep Kachhi, counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2, opposed the application and sought its dismissal. He submitted that the applicant was herself employed at Jaipur and was not residing at Jabalpur. He further contended that a substantial portion of the disputed property was situated in Village Kaudiya, Tehsil Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur, and that the suit had therefore been rightly instituted before the competent court at Gadarwara.

The respondents also placed on record Aadhaar Cards of respondents No. 1 and 2 and their minor sons, which reflected their address as Village Kaudiya, Tehsil Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur. On that basis, counsel contended that the suit was properly laid and the transfer application deserved to be dismissed.

The Legal Issue: What Section 22 CPC Requires

Before examining the merits of the competing residence claims, the court turned to the threshold question of whether the application under Section 22 CPC was maintainable at all.

Section 22 CPC provides that where a suit may be instituted in any one of two or more courts and is so instituted, any defendant, after notice to the other parties, may at the earliest possible opportunity apply to have the suit transferred to another court. The court to which such application is made must then, after considering objections, determine in which of the several courts having jurisdiction the suit shall proceed.

The court noted that during the hearing, the applicant's counsel had conceded that while the application was styled under Section 22, the actual power to transfer in such circumstances is exercised by the High Court under Section 24 CPC. Counsel did not dispute, however, that the application had not been framed as one under Section 24.

The court observed that a conjoint reading of Sections 22 and 24 CPC indicates that where a suit is capable of being instituted in more than one court having jurisdiction in different districts, the application for transfer must be made before the higher court. The question of whether an application under Section 22 was maintainable in the present form was itself identified as requiring consideration.

Notice as a Statutory Obligation, Not a Formality

The court's analysis focused on the plain text of Section 22. A bare reading of the provision, the court held, makes clear that a defendant seeking transfer must first issue notice to the other parties, and only thereafter can the application be preferred before the competent court. The issuance of such notice is a condition precedent for invoking Section 22 CPC.

The court stated that the invocation of Section 22 is contingent upon prior notice being given to the opposite parties by the defendant seeking transfer. In the present case, the applicant is the defendant in the underlying suit. If she wished to file an application under Section 22, it was her statutory obligation to first issue notice to the plaintiffs before approaching the court.

On examining the application, the court found no indication that any such notice had been issued to the opposite party prior to filing. The application had been filed directly, without fulfilling this precondition.

The court held: “in the absence of issuance of any notice to the opposite party by the present applicant, this Court is of the considered view that the present application is not maintainable.”

Because the application failed at this threshold, the court did not proceed to examine the competing factual claims about the respondents' place of residence or the location of the suit properties.

Outcome

Misc. Civil Case No. 2556 of 2025 was dismissed as not maintainable. No order as to costs was made. The underlying civil suit, Case No. RCSA/0000025/2025, continues before the Court of the 8th Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur.