Revision under Section 115 CPC is maintainable against Section 24 transfer orders as a “case decided.”

The petitioners (purchasers of the suit property) were involved in two suits: O.S. No. 1453/2024 for specific performance filed by Respondents 1 and 2, and O.S. No. 2897/2024 for permanent injunction filed by Petitioner 1

In a previous Miscellaneous First Appeal (MFA No. 6603/2024), the High Court directed the trial court (CCH-2) to dispose of both suits within one year

Due to repeated adjournments and interlocutory applications filed by Respondents 1 and 2, the High Court later extended the time and imposed costs of ₹50,000 on the respondents for non-cooperation

Subsequently, Respondents 1 and 2 filed Misc. Case No. 785/2025 under Section 24 of the CPC before the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, seeking to transfer the suits from CCH-2 to another court, alleging bias because the Presiding Officer refused adjournments

The District Court allowed the transfer to CCH-30

The petitioners challenged this transfer order under Section 115 of the CPC.

Section 115 of the CPC, which permits the High Court to revise any "case decided" in an original suit or "other proceedings" by a subordinate court where no appeal lies

The interpretation established in Babusingh and others v. Raj Bahadur Singh and Others (Allahabad High Court), which held that a transfer application under Section 24 is an independent "proceeding" and its final disposal by a District Judge constitutes a "case decided"

The court emphasized the administrative and judicial duty of subordinate courts to comply with time-bound disposal directions issued by superior courts under Article 227 of the Constitution or the CPC.

The court first addressed the maintainability of the petition. It reasoned that a Section 24 application, while ancillary to the main suit, is a judicial proceeding requiring the court to evaluate evidence of bias or necessity for transfer; therefore, the final order on such an application disposes of that specific "case" finally

Since the CPC provides no appeal against a Section 24 order, a revision under Section 115 is maintainable

On the merits, the court noted that Respondents 1 and 2 had suppressed the fact that they filed for transfer while simultaneously appearing before the High Court for an extension of time

The court found that the Presiding Officer’s "oral remarks" and refusal to grant adjournments were not indicative of bias but were necessary actions to comply with the High Court's strict one-year disposal deadline

The court observed that the judge who had conducted over 130 hearings was best suited to conclude the matter, and transferring it would only cause further delay

It quashed and set aside the order dated 21.02.2026 passed by the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge in Misc. No. 785/2025

The High Court directed the original trial judge (CCH-2) to proceed with and conclude O.S. No. 1453/2024, O.S. No. 2897/2024, and Misc. No. 576/2024 within a period of three months