Section 24(5) CPC empowers District Courts to transfer suits from courts lacking pecuniary jurisdiction to competent forums.

The respondent (landlord) filed S.C.C. Suit No. 69 of 2020 against the petitioner (tenant) for eviction and rent recovery in the Small Causes Court, Meerut.

After the evidence was concluded, the petitioner moved an amendment application contending the suit valuation (Rs. 1,06,806.45) exceeded the court's pecuniary jurisdiction of Rs. 1,00,000/-.

The respondent then moved a transfer application under Section 24(5) of the CPC. The District Judge, Meerut, allowed the application on 02.04.2026, withdrawing the suit and transferring it to the Court of the Additional District Judge, Meerut.

The petitioner challenged this order, arguing that since the suit was incompetent at institution, the plaint must be returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC rather than transferred.

1. Whether a District Court can exercise powers under Section 24(5) CPC to transfer a suit from a court lacking pecuniary jurisdiction to a competent court, or if return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC is the mandatory course.

2. Whether the evidence recorded by a court lacking inherent pecuniary jurisdiction becomes non est upon transfer to a competent court.

Section 24 of the CPC, specifically sub-section (5), which empowers a High Court or District Court to transfer a suit from a court that "has no jurisdiction to try it".

Order VII Rule 10 CPC regarding the return of a plaint for presentation before the proper court.

The maxim ut res magis valeat quam pereat to ensure statutory provisions are not rendered redundant.

The precedent in Shiv Shankar v. Mahavir @ Ghura Turha [2026:AHC:53013], which held that Section 24(5) is a valid remedial mechanism to cure jurisdictional defects.

The Court reasoned that Section 24(5) CPC is expressed in plain, unambiguous language that specifically contemplates the transfer of suits originally filed in courts lacking jurisdiction.

Rejecting the petitioner's argument that Order VII Rule 10 is the only permissible course, the Court held that such an interpretation would render Section 24(5) otiose.

The Court emphasized that the Code provides a complete framework where Order VII Rule 10 and Section 24(5) operate in complementary spheres to ensure adjudication by a competent forum.

Regarding the validity of previous proceedings, the Court noted that Section 24(2) expressly allows the transferee court the discretion to either retry the suit or proceed from the stage of transfer, meaning the prior evidence is not automatically obliterated.

The final holding dismissed the petition, confirming the transfer of the suit to the Additional District Judge for disposal in accordance with law.