Convenience of Decree-Holder or Counsel’s Negligence Insufficient Grounds for Transfer of Execution Proceedings under Section 24 CPC

The petitioners, residents of District Dhamtari, are the legal representatives of Piyan Sharma, who died in a motor accident involving a tractor and trolley on 26.01.2023

They filed a claim petition before the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), South Bastar, Dantewada, which awarded them compensation of Rs. 19,46,400/- on 19.06.2023

The petitioners subsequently filed Execution Case No. 83/2023 before the same Tribunal at Dantewada on 05.02.2025

On 13.03.2026, the Executing Court directed the payment of process fees and noted that the case might be dismissed for want of prosecution if proper details of the judgment-debtors were not provided

The petitioners sought transfer of the execution proceedings from Dantewada to Dhamtari, citing financial hardship, the long distance between the districts, and a lack of effective assistance from their current legal counsel

1. Whether the inconvenience of a party, financial hardship, or long distance from a residence constitutes sufficient grounds under Section 24 of the CPC to transfer execution proceedings

2. Whether the alleged lack of diligence or non-cooperation of an engaged counsel is a valid ground for the transfer of a case

Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which governs the general power of transfer and withdrawal of cases

The court further held that mere inconvenience or change of residence does not satisfy the threshold for transfer

The power of transfer is discretionary and must be exercised sparingly, only in exceptional circumstances where there is a demonstrated likelihood of a failure of justice or grave prejudice

a party has the legal right to change counsel rather than seek a transfer due to a lawyer's alleged negligence

The court evaluated the petitioners' grounds—specifically distance and financial strain—against the discretionary nature of Section 24 of the CPC. It held that the Executing Court at Dantewada had already taken cognizance of the matter and was proceeding in accordance with the law, including initiating attachment proceedings

The court reasoned that the petitioners failed to demonstrate "exceptional circumstances" or "grave prejudice" that would result in a failure of justice if the case remained at Dantewada

Regarding the petitioners' grievance with their advocate, the court noted that the appropriate remedy was to engage a new counsel at the current forum rather than transferring the entire litigation to a different district

Consequently, the court found no legal basis to interfere with the jurisdiction of the court already seized of the matter

It held that the petitioners failed to establish any compelling or legally sustainable grounds for transfer under Section 24 of the CPC. The petition was dismissed as devoid of merit