Parties must ordinarily seek civil-suit transfers from District Court first, Kerala High Court rules

The petitioners, defendants in O.S. No. 383 of 2024 pending before the Munsiff Court, Kottayam, sought its transfer to the Subordinate Judge Court, Kottayam, for joint trial with O.S. Nos. 144 of 2023 and 27 of 2025 pending there.

They applied directly to the Kerala High Court under Section 24 CPC.

The High Court considered whether the petitioners should first have approached the District Court, Kottayam, which also had jurisdiction to grant the requested transfer.

1. Whether, despite the High Court’s concurrent jurisdiction under Section 24 CPC, a party should ordinarily approach the District Court first for transfer of proceedings between subordinate courts.

2. Whether exceptional circumstances justified the petitioners’ direct approach to the High Court in this case.

Section 24 CPC empowers both the High Court and the District Court to withdraw and transfer proceedings pending before courts subordinate to them, provided the receiving court is competent to try or dispose of the matter.

Section 15 CPC, although governing the court in which suits are to be instituted, reflects a broader procedural policy of respecting the appropriate level in the judicial hierarchy; the Court applied that principle by analogy to transfer applications under Section 24.

Relying on Jaikaran Singh and Others v. Balakram and Others, 2020 SCC OnLine All 632, and Mohammed Rasal C. v. State of Kerala, 2025 KHC Online 7493, the Court stated that concurrent jurisdiction does not ordinarily justify bypassing the forum that should be approached first; absent exceptional circumstances, the District Court should be approached before the High Court.

Both the Munsiff Court and the Subordinate Judge Court were subordinate to the High Court and the District Court, making the District Court competent to consider the requested transfer.

Although the High Court also possessed jurisdiction under Section 24 CPC, the petitioners had not shown exceptional circumstances warranting its exercise in the first instance.

Applying the principle of judicial hierarchy and orderly exercise of concurrent jurisdiction, the Court required the petitioners to approach the District Court first.

It did not assess the merits of the requested transfer.

The dismissal was without prejudice to the merits of the transfer request, on which the Court expressed no opinion.