TRANSFER OF CASES UNDER THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908: A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS

Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Historical Evolution and Rationale
3. Legal Framework: Sections 22-25 of CPC
4. Section 22: Transfer by Defendant
5. Section 23: Determining the Appropriate Court
6. Section 24: General Power of Transfer and Withdrawal
7. Section 25: Transfer by Supreme Court
8. Grounds for Transfer of Cases
9. Procedural Safeguards and Requirements
10. Judicial Interpretations and Case Law
11. Comparative Analysis and Reform Suggestions
12. Conclusion
1. INTRODUCTION
The administration of justice requires not only the establishment of competent courts but also
mechanisms to ensure that cases are heard in the most appropriate forum. The Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (CPC) incorporates several provisions designed to facilitate the smooth functioning of
the judicial system while ensuring fairness and convenience to all parties involved.¹ Among these
provisions, the transfer of cases stands as a crucial mechanism that serves multiple objectives:
preventing forum shopping, eliminating bias, ensuring convenience, and promoting the efficient
administration of justice.²
The concept of transfer of cases under the CPC encompasses the judicial power to move proceedings
from one court to another court of competent jurisdiction.³ This mechanism is not merely procedural
but embodies fundamental principles of natural justice, ensuring that no party is prejudiced due to the
initial choice of forum and that justice is accessible and fair to all.⁴ The significance of these provisions
cannot be overstated in a diverse country like India, where geographical distances, language barriers,
and varying local conditions can significantly impact the administration of justice.
The transfer provisions serve as a safety valve in the judicial system, allowing for the correction ofinitial
forum selection and addressing circumstances that may arise during the pendency of proceedings.⁵
These provisions recognize that the initial choice of court, while legally valid, may not always serve the
best interests of justice or the parties involved.⁶

---

2. HISTORICAL EVOLUTION AND RATIONALE

The provisions relating to the transfer of cases have evolved significantly from the original CPC of 1882
to the current Code of 1908.⁷ The framers of the CPC recognized that in a vast country with multiple
courts having overlapping jurisdictions, there needed to be clear mechanisms for transferring cases to
ensure justice and convenience.⁸
The historical rationale behind these provisions stems from several considerations. First, the
recognition that jurisdiction, while technically correct, may not always result in the most appropriate
forum for adjudication.⁹ Second, the need to prevent abuse of the legal process through forum
shopping, where parties might deliberately choose inconvenient forums to harass their opponents.¹⁰
Third, the necessity of ensuring that courts with better infrastructure, expertise, or convenience could
hear cases when circumstances warranted such transfer.¹¹
The evolution of these provisions also reflects the changing nature of Indian society and the legal
system. The original provisions were designed for a more static society, but amendments and judicial
interpretations have adapted these provisions to meet contemporary needs.¹² The Supreme Court has
consistently held that the transfer provisions should be liberally construed to serve the ends of
justice.¹³
The philosophical foundation of transfer provisions lies in the principle that procedural law should
serve substantive justice rather than creating barriers to it.¹⁴ This principle has guided both legislative
amendments and judicial interpretations of these provisions over the d
3. LEGAL FRAMEWORK: SECTIONS 22-25 OF CPC

The transfer of cases under the CPC is primarily governed by Sections 22 to 25, which form a
comprehensive framework addressing different scenarios and authorities empowered to order
transfers.¹⁶ These sections create a hierarchical system of transfer powers, ensuring that appropriate
judicial authorities handle transfer applications based on the courts involved.¹⁷

Section 22 specifically addresses the rights of defendants to seek transfer when a suit could have been
instituted in multiple courts.¹⁸ This section recognizes the defendant's legitimate interest in having the
case heard in a convenient forum, balancing this against the plaintiff's right to choose the forum.¹⁹ The
section embodies the principle that while the plaintiff has the first choice of forum, this choice should
not result in undue hardship to the defendant when alternative forums are available.²⁰

Section 23 provides the procedural framework for determining which superior court should hear
transfer applications, creating a clear hierarchy based on the relationship between the courts
involved.²¹ This section prevents conflicts between different superior courts and ensures that transfer
applications are heard by the most appropriate authority.²²

Section 24 grants broader powers to High Courts and District Courts to transfer cases either on their
own motion or upon application by parties.²³ This section goes beyond the defendant's right under
Section 22 and encompasses transfers in the interest of justice, efficient case management, and other
administrative considerations.²⁴

Section 25 empowers the Supreme Court to transfer cases between different states, recognizing the
federal structure of the Indian judicial system.²⁵ This section ensures that the highest court can
intervene when inter-state transfer becomes necessary for the ends of justice.²⁶
4. SECTION 22: TRANSFER BY DEFENDANT

Section 22 of the CPC provides a specific right to defendants to apply for the transfer of cases to
another court when the suit could have been instituted in more than one court.²⁷ This provision
recognizes that while plaintiffs have the initial choice of forum, defendants should not be unduly
prejudiced by this choice when alternative forums exist.²⁸

The key requirements under Section 22 include the timing of the application, which must be made
before the settlement of issues or during the process of settling issues.²⁹ This temporal limitation
ensures that transfer applications are made early in the proceedings, preventing delays and ensuring
that the transfer, if granted, does not disrupt the progress of the case significantly.³⁰

The procedural requirements mandate that notice must be given to all parties, ensuring transparency
and fairness in the transfer process.³¹ The court is required to consider objections from other parties
before making a decision, balancing the interests of all parties involved.³²

The legislative intent behind Section 22 is to prevent the misuse of multiple jurisdiction by plaintiffs
who might choose inconvenient forums to harass defendants.³³ However, the courts have consistently
held that mere inconvenience is not sufficient ground for transfer; there must be substantial reasons
justifying the transfer.³⁴
Judicial interpretations have established that the defendant's right under Section 22 is not absolute
and must be balanced against other considerations, including the convenience of witnesses, the
location of the cause of action, and the interests of justice.³⁵ The Supreme Court has emphasized that
this section should be interpreted liberally to serve the ends of justice while preventing abuse.³⁶

5. SECTION 23: DETERMINING THE APPROPRIATE COURT

Section 23 of the CPC addresses the crucial question of which superior court should hear an application
for transfer when multiple courts of different jurisdictions are involved.³⁷ This section creates a clear
hierarchy and prevents jurisdictional conflicts that could arise when different superior courts claim
authority over transfer applications.³⁸

The section is divided into three distinct scenarios. When the courts involved are subordinate to the
same appellate court, the application should be made to that common appellate court.³⁹ This ensures
that a court familiar with both subordinate courts and their local conditions can make an informed
decision about the transfer.⁴⁰

In cases where the courts are under different appellate courts but the same High Court, the application
is made to the High Court.⁴¹ This recognizes the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction over all
subordinate courts within its territorial limits.⁴²

The third scenario addresses situations where courts under different High Courts are involved,
directing that the application be made to the High Court having jurisdiction over the court where the
suit was originally filed.⁴³ This provision ensures that there is always a clear authority to approach for
transfer applications, preventing jurisdictional vacuum.⁴⁴

The rationale behind these provisions is to ensure that transfer applications are heard by courts that
have adequate knowledge of the local conditions, case loads, and other factors relevant to making an
informed decision about transfer.⁴⁵ The hierarchical approach also ensures that the decision-making
authority has appropriate supervisory powers over the courts involved.⁴⁶
6. SECTION 24: GENERAL POWER OF TRANSFER AND WITHDRAWAL
Section 24 represents the most comprehensive provision regarding the transfer of cases, granting
broad powers to High Courts and District Courts to transfer or withdraw cases.⁴⁷ Unlike Section 22,
which is limited to defendants' applications, Section 24 empowers courts to act suo motu and allows
any party to apply for transfer.⁴⁸

The suo motu power under Section 24 is particularly significant as it recognizes that courts, in their
supervisory capacity, may identify situations where transfer would serve the interests of justice even
when parties have not applied for it.⁴⁹ This power enables proactive case management and prevents
situations where cases might suffer due to inappropriate forum selection.⁵⁰

The scope of Section 24 extends to all stages of proceedings, whether the case is pending trial, during
appeal, or revision.⁵¹ This comprehensive coverage ensures that transfer can be ordered whenever
circumstances warrant it, regardless of the stage of proceedings.⁵²

The requirement that the transferee court must be competent to hear and dispose of the matter
ensures that transfers do not create jurisdictional complications.⁵³ This competency requirement
encompasses both territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction, ensuring that the receiving court can
effectively handle the case.⁵⁴
When transfer is ordered under Section 24, the transferee court has the discretion to either start the
proceedings afresh or continue from the stage where the case was transferred.⁵⁵ This flexibility allows
courts to make decisions based on the specific circumstances of each case and the extent of
proceedings already completed.⁵⁶

The judicial interpretation of Section 24 has established that this power should be exercised
judiciously, considering factors such as the balance of convenience, interests of justice, and efficient
administration of justice.⁵⁷ Courts have consistently held that this power is not meant to be exercised
arbitrarily but should be based on sound judicial principles.⁵⁸
7. SECTION 25: TRANSFER BY SUPREME COURT

Section 25 of the CPC empowers the Supreme Court to transfer cases from the High Court or civil court
of one state to the High Court or civil court of another state.⁵⁹ This provision recognizes the Supreme
Court's position at the apex of the judicial hierarchy and its role in ensuring uniform administration of
justice across the country.⁶⁰

The inter-state transfer power is crucial in a federal system where different states may have varying
legal procedures, languages, and local conditions.⁶¹ The Supreme Court's power under this section
ensures that cases can be moved when necessary for the ends of justice, transcending state
boundaries.⁶²

The procedural requirement that applications must be supported by an affidavit ensures that transfer
requests are based on verifiable facts rather than mere allegations.⁶³ This requirement prevents
frivolous applications and ensures that the Supreme Court's time is utilized effectively.⁶⁴

An important aspect of Section 25 is the provision regarding applicable law. Unless the Supreme Court
directs otherwise, the law applicable to the case remains the law of the original court.⁶⁵ This ensures
legal continuity and prevents complications that might arise from different state laws.⁶⁶

The Supreme Court has used its power under Section 25 in various situations, including cases involving
communal tensions, high-profile matters requiring neutral forums, and situations where local
conditions might prejudice fair trial.⁶⁷ The exercise of this power reflects the Supreme Court's role as
the guardian of constitutional rights and justice.⁶⁸

The judicial interpretation of Section 25 has established that this power should be exercised sparingly
and only when compelling circumstances exist.⁶⁹ The Supreme Court has emphasized that mere
convenience or preference is not sufficient ground for inter-state transfer.⁷⁰

8. GROUNDS FOR TRANSFER OF CASES

The CPC does not exhaustively list the grounds for transfer, leaving it to judicial interpretation to
develop principles governing when transfers should be granted.⁷¹ Over the decades, courts have
identified several valid grounds while also clarifying what does not constitute sufficient justification for
transfer.⁷²

Apprehension of bias represents one of the most significant grounds for transfer.⁷³ However, courts
have consistently held that such apprehension must be reasonable and based on objective factors
rather than mere suspicion or unfounded allegations.⁷⁴ The test applied is whether a reasonable
person in the applicant's position would have legitimate concerns about receiving a fair trial.⁷⁵
The principle of avoiding multiplicity of proceedings provides another important ground for transfer.⁷⁶
When multiple suits involving the same parties and similar issues are filed in different courts, transfer
can consolidate these proceedings, promoting efficiency and preventing conflicting judgments.⁷⁷

Balance of convenience is frequently cited as a ground for transfer, encompassing factors such as the
location of parties, witnesses, and documentary evidence.⁷⁸ However, courts have clarified that
convenience must be substantial and not merely marginal to justify transfer.⁷⁹

Prevention of unnecessary delay or expense provides another valid ground, particularly when the
current court is overburdened or lacks adequate infrastructure.⁸⁰ This ground reflects the principle
that procedural mechanisms should facilitate rather than hinder access to justice.⁸¹

Courts have also recognized the need to prevent conflict of decisions as a valid ground for transfer.⁸²
When similar issues are being adjudicated in different courts, transfer can ensure consistency and
prevent contradictory judgments.⁸³

However, certain factors do not justify transfer. Mere inconvenience to the applicant, without more, is
insufficient.⁸⁴ Similarly, vague allegations of bias without supporting evidence will not warrant
transfer.⁸⁵ The distance of the court from the applicant's residence alone is also not considered a valid
ground.⁸⁶
9. PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS AND REQUIREMENTS

The CPC incorporates several procedural safeguards to ensure fairness and transparency in the transfer
process while preventing abuse of these provisions.⁸⁷ These safeguards reflect the principle that
procedural fairness is essential for substantive justice.⁸⁸

The requirement of notice to all parties before hearing transfer applications ensures that all interested
parties have an opportunity to present their views.⁸⁹ This notice requirement embodies the principles
of natural justice and ensures that transfers are not ordered ex parte except in exceptional
circumstances.⁹⁰

The mandatory consideration of objections from other parties ensures that transfer decisions are
made after hearing all sides.⁹¹ Courts are required to balance the interests of all parties, not just the
applicant, when deciding transfer applications.⁹²

The requirement that courts must record reasons for ordering transfer ensures accountability and
transparency.⁹³ This requirement enables appellate review and ensures that transfer orders are based
on sound legal principles rather than arbitrary discretion.⁹⁴

The immediate effectiveness of transfer orders ensures that once granted, transfers are implemented
without delay.⁹⁵ This prevents the case from remaining in limbo and ensures continuity of
proceedings.⁹⁶

To discourage frivolous applications, the CPC empowers courts to impose costs up to ₹2,000 on
applicants whose transfer requests are dismissed as frivolous or made in bad faith.⁹⁷ This provision
serves as a deterrent against abuse of transfer provisions while ensuring that genuine applications are
not discouraged.⁹⁸

The procedural framework also addresses the status of proceedings after transfer.⁹⁹ The transferee
court has the discretion to continue proceedings from where they were left off or to start afresh,
depending on the circumstances and the stage of proceedings.¹⁰⁰
10. JUDICIAL INTERPRETATIONS AND CASE LAW

The Supreme Court and various High Courts have, through numerous judgments, clarified and refined
the scope and application of transfer provisions.¹⁰¹ These judicial interpretations have filled gaps in the
statutory provisions and provided guidance for the consistent application of transfer laws.¹⁰²

In the landmark case of Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. v. Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking
Corporation, the Supreme Court established important principles regarding the exercise of transfer
powers.¹⁰³ The Court emphasized that transfer powers should be exercised to serve the ends of justice
and should not be used to cause unnecessary hardship to any party.¹⁰⁴

The Supreme Court in Manish Goel v. Rohini Goel laid down comprehensive guidelines for transfer
applications, emphasizing that courts should consider the totality of circumstances rather than isolated
factors.¹⁰⁵ This holistic approach ensures that transfer decisions serve the broader interests of
justice.¹⁰⁶

In several cases, the Supreme Court has clarified that the apprehension of bias must be reasonable
and based on objective circumstances.¹⁰⁷ The Court has consistently rejected transfer applications
based on vague or unsubstantiated allegations of bias.¹⁰⁸

High Courts have also contributed significantly to the development of transfer jurisprudence.¹⁰⁹
Various High Court decisions have addressed specific scenarios and provided detailed guidance on
factors to be considered in transfer applications.¹¹⁰

The evolution of case law has also addressed the relationship between different transfer provisions,
clarifying when Section 22 applies as opposed to Section 24, and the scope of Supreme Court's power
under Section 25.¹¹¹ This jurisprudential development has created a coherent framework for transfer
applications.¹¹²

Recent judgments have also addressed contemporary issues such as the impact of technology on court
proceedings and how these developments affect transfer considerations.¹¹³ Courts have recognized
that modern communication technologies can sometimes reduce the significance of geographical
distance in transfer decisions.¹¹⁴
11. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND REFORM SUGGESTIONS

A comparative analysis of transfer provisions in other jurisdictions reveals both strengths and areas for
improvement in the Indian system.¹¹⁵ Countries like England, Australia, and Canada have developed
sophisticated frameworks for case transfer that offer insights for potential reforms.¹¹⁶

The English system's emphasis on case management and early resolution of transfer issues provides a
model for more efficient handling of transfer applications.¹¹⁷ The concept of case management
conferences where transfer issues are addressed early in proceedings could be beneficial for the Indian
system.¹¹⁸

The Australian Federal Court's approach to transfer, which considers factors such as the interests of
justice, efficiency, and fairness in a structured manner, offers a framework for more systematic
decision-making in transfer matters.¹¹⁹ This approach could help reduce inconsistencies in transfer
decisions across different courts.¹²⁰
Several reforms could enhance the effectiveness of transfer provisions in India. First, clearer timelines
for disposal of transfer applications would prevent prolonged uncertainty.¹²¹ Currently, there are no
specific time limits, leading to delays that can affect the main proceedings.¹²²

Second, the development of uniform guidelines for transfer applications across all High Courts would
promote consistency and predictability.¹²³ Different High Courts currently apply varying standards,
creating uncertainty for litigants and lawyers.¹²⁴

Third, the integration of technology could facilitate better case management and reduce the relevance
of geographical factors in some transfer decisions.¹²⁵ Virtual hearings and digital case management
systems could make the choice of forum less critical in certain types of cases.¹²⁶

Fourth, enhanced training for judges on transfer provisions and their underlying principles could
improve the quality and consistency of decisions.¹²⁷ Many transfer applications involve complex
balancing of multiple factors, requiring nuanced understanding of the legal principles involved.¹²⁸

12. CONCLUSION

The transfer provisions under the CPC represent a sophisticated mechanism designed to ensure that
cases are heard in the most appropriate forums while maintaining fairness to all parties.¹²⁹ These
provisions embody fundamental principles of justice, including the right to fair trial, access to justice,
and efficient administration of the legal system.¹³⁰

The framework created by Sections 22-25 of the CPC has proven robust and adaptable, serving the
Indian legal system effectively for over a century.¹³¹ The hierarchical structure of transfer powers, from
defendant's rights under Section 22 to the Supreme Court's authority under Section 25, creates a
comprehensive system that can address various scenarios and requirements.¹³²

However, the system is not without challenges. The lack of specific timelines, varying interpretations
across courts, and the evolving nature of legal practice in the digital age present opportunities for
improvement.¹³³ The proposed reforms, including clearer guidelines, better case management, and
enhanced use of technology, could address these challenges while maintaining the essential character
of the transfer system.¹³⁴

The continued relevance and effectiveness of transfer provisions depend on their adaptation to
contemporary needs while maintaining their core objectives.¹³⁵ As the Indian legal system continues
to evolve, these provisions must evolve as well, guided by the fundamental principle that procedural
law should serve substantive justice.¹³⁶

The transfer of cases under the CPC remains a vital component of the Indian judicial system, ensuring
that justice is not only done but is also accessible, fair, and efficient.¹³⁷ The ongoing development of
this area of law through judicial interpretation and potential legislative reforms will continue to
enhance its effectiveness in serving the cause of justice.¹³⁸
FOOTNOTES

¹ The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, § 22-25 (India).

² See generally MULLA, THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 342-365 (18th ed. 2016).

³ Transfer of Cases under CPC, LAWBHOOMI, https://lawbhoomi.com/transfer-of-cases-under-cpc/

(last visited Aug. 20, 2025).
⁴ See Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. v. Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corp., (2009) 8 SCC 646
(India).

⁵ Id.

⁶ See C.K. TAKWANI, CIVIL PROCEDURE 198-205 (8th ed. 2017).

⁷ See THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1882 (India) (repealed).