Section 24 CPC transfer is unwarranted at the suit’s fag end after evidence and final arguments.

The applicant-wife was Plaintiff No. 1 in Regular Civil Suit No. 272 of 2016, instituted along with two minor children before the Regular Civil Court.

The suit sought a declaration of the plaintiffs’ undivided share in the suit property and a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant-husband from transferring, alienating, or creating third-party rights in that property.

During the stage of final arguments, it was contended that, because the dispute concerned property between parties to a marriage, the suit ought to have been instituted before the Family Court under Section 7(1)(c) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

The applicant therefore sought transfer of the suit to the Family Court, Ahmedabad, under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, while requesting that the evidence already recorded be preserved and the matter proceed from its existing stage.

Whether Regular Civil Suit No. 272 of 2016, concerning property claimed between a wife and husband, was required to be transferred from the Regular Civil Court to the Family Court, Ahmedabad under Section 7(1)(c) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 and Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Whether the High Court should exercise its discretionary power of transfer at the stage of final arguments, particularly when the suit had already been fully tried before the Civil Court.

The Court considered Section 7(1)(c) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, which confers jurisdiction on the Family Court over suits or proceedings between parties to a marriage relating to the property of the parties or either of them.

It also considered Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which empowers the High Court to transfer suits or proceedings between competent subordinate courts.

The Court applied the principles that transfer is discretionary, that jurisdiction cannot be conclusively determined merely on the basis of an unsupported assertion, and that a proceeding should not ordinarily be transferred at the fag end of the trial, particularly where the consequences concerning evidence and procedural validity have not been addressed.

The Court declined to transfer the suit because it had been instituted in 2016, the parties had already led oral and documentary evidence, and the matter had reached final arguments.

Although the applicant relied on the relationship between the parties and Section 7(1)(c) of the Family Courts Act, the Court observed that the record did not contain sufficient material, including the issues framed in the suit, to establish that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction.

The Court further held that transferring the matter at that advanced stage, while preserving evidence recorded by the Civil Court and requiring the Family Court to continue from the existing stage, was procedurally undesirable.

If the Civil Court were inherently without jurisdiction, evidence recorded before it could not simply be relied upon by the court possessing jurisdiction.

The application was rejected without costs.

The Civil Court was nevertheless directed to decide the suit on the issues germane to the proceedings and in accordance with law, without being influenced by the High Court’s observations on the transfer application.

The Regular Civil Court was directed to decide the suit in accordance with the issues and applicable law, independently of the observations made in the transfer proceedings.