Transfer of Subsequent Suits to Court of Prior Institution to Prevent Conflicting Decrees and Ensure Judicial Economy

The applicants (Preeti Mishra and another) claim that a minor girl was given to them by the opposite parties via a registered adoption deed dated 30.06.2022.

Alleging subsequent pressure from the opposite parties to return the child, the applicants filed O.S. No. 2465 of 2022 in Kanpur Nagar for a declaration that the adoption deed is valid.

Thereafter, the opposite parties filed O.S. No. 170 of 2023 in Kannauj seeking cancellation of the same deed.

The opposite parties expressed "no objection" to the transfer.

1. Whether the pendency of two suits involving the same parties and the same subject matter (validity of an adoption deed) in different jurisdictions warrants the exercise of discretionary power under Section 24 of the CPC.

2. Whether the "no objection" of the opposite parties is sufficient grounds alone for a transfer, or if the court must independently satisfy itself that the transfer advances the ends of justice.

Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), which grants discretionary power to transfer suits to advance the cause of justice.

Principle of "judicial consistency" and "procedural economy," holding that trials should be consolidated to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, inconsistent findings on common questions of fact and law, and conflicting decrees.

Doctrine that the court where the earlier proceeding is pending (forum of the first suit) is generally the more appropriate forum for subsequent related proceedings.

The Court observed that both suits are fundamentally rooted in the validity of the adoption deed dated 30.06.2022; one seeks its validation, the other its cancellation.

The Court reasoned that since the evidence and legal questions substantially overlap, independent trials in different courts would result in a wasteful duplication of judicial effort and create a high risk of conflicting decrees regarding the same document.

While the Court noted the opposite parties' consent, it emphasized that jurisdiction under Section 24 CPC is equitable and must be exercised based on whether the transfer facilitate a fair and effective adjudication, rather than consent alone.

The court determined that as the Kanpur Nagar suit was instituted first and no compelling reasons suggested otherwise, the interest of justice favored transferring the subsequent Kannauj suit to the earlier forum.

The Court ordered the withdrawal of O.S. No. 170 of 2023 from the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kannauj, and its transfer to the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kanpur Nagar.

The Kannauj court was directed to transmit the original records within fifteen days.

The transferee court was directed to consider the desirability of hearing both suits together to ensure an effective adjudication.