Constitution has established institutions to take care of any disputes that
arise in the society; one such institution is the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Civil procedure is the set of directions that one must follow when they turn
towards the justice system in order to settle a dispute that is not criminal in
A forum must be approached in order to resolve every dispute. In each civil
dispute, the offended party has the privilege to choose the forum where he/she
wishes to establish the suit given it has the jurisdiction to try the suit. When
a suit has been filed by one party that is plaintiff of his choice, the other
party that is the defendant has couple of choices either to accept the place of
suing and file the written statement or to file the application for the transfer
of the suit in case if he is not satisfied with the place of suing. Without the
acceptance of the defendant the court cannot start with the proceedings however,
the court may reject the application for the same and the defendant has to
accept it. Apart from the parties the courts at its discretion have the power to
transfer the suit. Sections 22 and 23 deal with the rights of the defendant to
apply for the transfer of a suit, while Sections 24 and 25 authorize certain
courts to transfer the suit.
Power to transfer suits which may be instituted in more than one court:
In Section 22 of Code of Civil Procedure the plaintiff gets right to institute
the suit in any competent court and after this the defendant gets the right to
apply for the transfer of the suit at the earliest of the time after notifying
about the purpose of the application to the plaintiff. The court may also
consider the objection, if there any, of the plaintiff in matter of transfer of
the suit from the court where the suit has been instituted to another court. And
so further after clearance of the objection the suit will be transferred to that
court only which has jurisdiction to proceed with that case.
Section 22 and 23 are complementary to each other, as section 22 confers a power
on the defendant to apply for the transfer to the conditions mentioned therein
and section 23 dictates where the application for transfer of suits be made.
There must be suitable conditions mentioned in the application as it may be,
further, liable for the dismissal of the application and this application must
be made before the settlement of the issue.
Section 22 of the Civil Procedure Code applies where the issues are framed at or
determined or before the settlement of the issue. If the issues have already
been determined and the applicant cannot come before the Court for transfer of
case, the applicant will have no remedy under the provisions
of Civil Procedure Code.
A plaintiff as arbiter it is has right to select a forum on his own
choice.This right is controlled by the power of transfer; but this is a
right which should not lightly to be interfered with.Wife’s application for
custody was pending as the husband instituted the suit in a court at another
place. The transfer application was made by the wife in the same court as the
nature of both the proceedings was same. No suggestion was made by the husband
that due to financial difficulties the prosecution of the proceeding was
prevented at the place where wife’s application was pending. The prejudice to
husband could not be assumed from the mere fact that he would have to undertake
the journey. So considering the fact of this case, suit filed by the husband
will get transferred.In Mst. Basanti Devi v. Mst. Sahodra,a case in
which Section 22 of the CPC, was construed, it has been laid down that in an
application for transfer under Section22 of the CPC the convenience of the
parties alone should not be considered, but the totality of circumstances should
indicate that a suit should proceed in a Court different from the Court chosen
by the plaintiff. Also, mere convenience of the party is not enough for transfer
of a case from one Court to another.
According to section 22 of Civil Procedure Code, it is mandatory to mention the
time and give the notice of the application. Notice should be given to all those
parties pleaded in the suit, whether as plaintiff or defendant and merely to the
opposite parties only. Under the provisions of this section, notice of the
application must be given to each and every party of the suit and the court
before it is made. But, it has been held that the defect could be cured by
notice on the application itself.But an order of transfer without notice is
Stay of Suit:
Section 20 of the code, provided for stay of proceeding to compel the plaintiff
to take case to other court. This provision is further omitted and sufficient
provisions have been added in sections 22 to 24. But the court can stay on a
suit if there is abuse of this process. In a suit filed in the Bombay High
Court, the fact that both the parties and the witnesses of the defendants were
residents of Wardha in Central Provinces (Now Madhya Pradesh ) was held not to
justify an order for the stay of the suit.
To what court application lies:
·Where the several courts having the jurisdiction subordinate to the
same appellate court then an application, u/s 22, shall be made to the appellate
·Where such courts are subordinate to different appellate courts but to
the same High Court then the application shall be made to the High Court.
·Where such courts are subordinate to different High Courts, the
application shall be made to the High Court within the local limits of whose
jurisdiction the court in which the suit is brought is situated.
In Mamta Gupta v. Mukund Kumar Gupta,both the suits filed by the
respondent husband were pending in the file of Family Court at Hyderabad which
is subordinate to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the petitioner wife seeks
both the suits to be transferred to a subordinate Court i.e., Family Court, Indore which is subordinate to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. In the case
before the Supreme Court in Western Uttar Pradesh Electronic's case,the
Western Uttar Pradesh Electric & Power Supply Company Limited filed a suit
against the Hind Lamps Ltd. in the civil Court at Mainpuri claiming amounts
towards charges for the electricity consumed during February and March, 1962 and
the minimum guarantee charges from 1st April to 30lh September 1962.
A subordinate judge is subordinate to the district court no matter what forum of
appeal may be in particular case for the transfer of which application is made.
A full bench of Rangoon High Court has held that for transfer of a suit pending
in a High Court, an application should be made to that court that has power to
transfer u/s 151 of Civil Procedure Code.
Different High Courts:
If a suit between the same parties is filed in courts subordinate to different
High Courts then either High Court may transfer the suit from the court
subordinate to it or transfer can be made to court subordinate to another High
Court. In a case where the plaintiff in abuse his power as dominus litis and in
disregard of the convenience of both parties filed his suit in a court
subordinate to the High Court at Allahabad, the High Court in its inherent
jurisdiction transferred the suit to the chief court at oudh.In State Bank
of India v. M/s. Sakow Industries Faridabad (Pvt) Ltd., New Delhi,, the
learned single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the High Court
could examine the powers of transfer underSection23(3) to meet the ends of
justice and to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.
Withdrawal and Transfer of suits:
Section 24, without specifying any grounds in provisions, empowers High Court
and District court to transfer or withdraw or transfer at any stage any pending
suit, appeal or any proceeding from any sub-ordinate court upon the aggrieved
Scope of Section 24:
Sub-section (1) of Section 24 vests general power to transfer or withdraw a suit
in High court and District court, on application of any of the parties after
notice to the parties. This suit may be at any stage like pending suit or appeal
or any proceeding. The suit can be transferred from one court to another but
that should be equally competent to the previous one. This section also empowers
the High Court to exercise its power keeping the justice and convenience of the
parties. Under this section the High Court also gets power to suo moto to
withdraw any case from sub-ordinate court and to adjudicate on it or to transfer
it to any other competent court. Some different reasons looking for the transfer
of suit are the biased methodology of the Court from which transfer is looked
for. In any case, this apprehension of partiality must be reasonable. Barely
assumptions or possible apprehension can't and ought not to be the premise of
transferring a case from one Court to the next. The power of transfer of a case
from one Court to the next must be practiced in light of due consideration and
alert bearing that there ought to be no unnecessary, dishonourable or
unjustifiable disgrace or slur on the Court from which the case is transferred.
Sometimes a transfer is looked for when two or more related suits, with similar
parties and subject matter are being attempted exclusively so they are clubbed
together and attempted or adjudicated upon in one Court. However, the power of
the High Court under section 24 does not confer the power to transfer suits from
courts of one state to another. This limits the power to transfer the suits
within its jurisdiction. When an appeal is filed against the order passed
underSection24by a learned single Judge of the High Court, Division Bench
must be reluctant to interfere in the matter unless it is manifestly illegal and
erroneous or carrying grave and substantial injustice.
In Alia Subbareddi v. Lanki Reddi Narayanaswatni Reddi and Ors,.the Court
held that when an application for transfer of a suit to the High Court is made under Section 24CPC and notice is ordered, it is in the nature of an original
proceedings within the meaning ofSection141 CPC and procedure provided under
the Code in regard to suits becomes applicable. The above view that proceedings
under Section 24 CPC is an original proceedings is confirmed by a Division Bench
of Madras High Court consisting of Rajamannar, C.J., and Viswanatha Sastri, J.
in Srirangam Municipality represented by its Executive Authority the
Commissioner v. R.V. Palaniswami Pillai. In Ouseph v. Pylee,a
Division Bench of this Court held that no appeal will lie against the order of a
single Judge in appointing a Receiver. But, that order was passed in an appeal
using appellate jurisdiction.
Convenience of parties
The convenience of parties is to be viewed as an adequate ground for making a
move under Section 24, especially when parties are required to approach
particular diverse forums. Where both suits raise regular defence and issues the
case ought to be transferred to the same court.
Three suits in respect of assertion of rights of distribution of one film were
pending in Madras and Bombay High Courts. The Supreme Court directed to stay
further procedures in Bombay suit and to dispose suit of Madras quickly and in
the conditions the Bombay suit was not transferred to Madras.
Suo Motu Transfer or Withdrawal of cases by court:
Under section 24 of Civil Procedure Code, the jurisdiction is exercised in
matter of transfer of suits, appeal or proceeding by the High Court or the
District Court is independent or controlled by an application being produced by
any of the parties and the power of transfer can be practiced by the High Court
or the District Judge even with no such application being proceeded onward his
movement suo motu?
Under section 24 of the CPC the High Court may, on the application of any of the
parties or of its own movement, not just transfer a suit for trial from one
court to the next subordinate court, yet may likewise to withdraw any pending
suit in any of its subordinate court and attempt or dispose the same. The power
of suit can be practiced on an application of any of the parties furthermore,
Section 24 does not endorse any grounds on which the transfer of a case might be
ordered from one court to another. However, certain principles have been
advanced by choices, when a case might be transferred to the use of a party.
There is, in any case, no confinement at all on the power of the High Court to
transfer a case or withdraw it Suo moto.
The resultant position emerging on an analysis of facts and law involved is
thatSection24of the CPC empowering the superior courts for transfer and
withdrawal of the cases from the subordinate courts is applicable to
thecivilcourts which have been notified as the appropriate courts on
satisfaction of the grounds for such transfer.
In Appukuttan v.Z. Thomas Zakaria-
The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court held that Session Judge has no right to
withdraw or transfer the trail to any other court of another Additional Judge or
Session Judge once the trail has commenced but before the start of the trail,
Session court has all power to withdraw the session case and it can be done
either through application or suo motu and so can transfer the case to any other
As laid down by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Dr. Rajnath v. L. Vidya
Ram & Ors., the issues since already framed and the application has been
made after five months of the framing of the issues no prior notice is given as
contemplated underSection22which is mandatory in nature, hence, this
application underSection24 of Civil Procedure Code is not maintainable.
General Power of Transfer
This section provides general power of transfer of all the suits, appeals or any
other proceedings pending before any subordinate court to High Court or District
court for trail. This section is broader than that of Section 22. It may be
exercised at any stage of the proceedings and even suo motu without any
application.Andhra Pradesh recommended the government to transfer some
areas of jurisdiction of courts to another courts where the cases were low in
number just because to lessen the number of pending cases. It was held that
there was nothing arbitrary and illegal in the notification of the
Transfer of suits from Additional District Judge to D.R.T.
Tribunal like D.R.T. won't come under the provisions of section 24, particularly
in the light of specific provisions of special enactment, section 24 of C.P.C.
was not relevant and the proceeding was changed over to one under Article 227 of
Constitution on request.
The Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1975, has included sub-section (5)
which gives that a suit or proceeding might be transferred under this section
from a court which has no ward to attempt it.
In Murarilalv. Ramanlal
Section 24(5) will empower a court to pass orders transferring notwithstanding
pending procedures. When the retrospective operation of a procedural law is
discussed, it just implies that even pending proceedings will be represented by
the changed law of system. However, the principle of retrospective does not
reach out to imply that if an order has as of now been passed which had no
legitimate viability when it was passed, it will get such lawful acceptance in
perspective of the consequent amendment of the law.
Obviously, if the amending legislation, explicitly or by clear implication,
recommends that even orders which have as of now been passed previously will be
influenced ex-post facto by the amending provision, the Lawmaking body is
equipped to do as such.
But the recently included section 24(5) has no such express or suggested
intendment. Looking to its phraseology, which is clearly made operative later
on, it sets out that a suit or proceeding might be transferred under this
section. It is not equipped for leading itself to an elucidation that the orders
which were so passed before, which needed legitimacy when they were so passed,
will get legitimacy in the light of this section.
It was held that Court of a Rent Controller is not a court under this section
as; it is not subordinate to District Court or High Court.
The District Judge while acting under Act XIII of 1972, U.P. Urban Buildings
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, functions as persona
designata and not as a Court. Once the District Judge is observed to be a Court,
then it is not open to the High Court to transfer a case from his record to the
document of some other Court of competent jurisdiction.
"A Court of Small Causes" inSection24(4)CivilProcedureCoderefer to Court
of Small Causes constituted under theProvincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887,
and not to a Court exercising the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes under
the said Act.Section24,CivilProcedureCode, enables the District Court of
its own motion even without giving notice to the parties or hearing the parties
to transfer any suit pending in any Court subordinate to it to another Court
subordinate to it.
The Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Bhagwati Pande v. Badri Pande
and Another explainedSection24CivilProcedureCodeas follows:-
"ObviouslySection24contemplates the transfer of a case from one existing
Court. If therefore a Court of Small causes has ceased to exist or the officer
invested with Small Cause Court powers has been transferred from the district
and there is no other officer possessing such powers, there would be no Court
from which the District Court can underSection24CivilProcedureCodetransfer
the case to an ordinary civil court."
If there is no convenience- No transfer
Transfer of succession application is a bit much when the other party was
prepared to endure bear of travel and stay of petitioner for going to the court.
Transfer on a ground that no lawyer was available at spot where succession
application was pending is not valid particularly when applicant was permitted
to have costs for engaging for advocate from other party.
An Application for transfer of Suit under Section 25:
Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers the Supreme Court to transfer
any Case, appeal or other proceedings from High Court or another civil court in
one State to a High Court or other civil court in any other State. This power
might be practiced by the Supreme Court if it thinks that it is fulfilled of the
order under this Section is convenient for the end of the justice. Therefore the
wide powers are given to the Supreme Court to order a transfer if the court
thinks the end of the justice is so required.
The vital thought for the transfer of a case under Section 25 of CPC must be the
prerequisite of justice. The insignificant comfort of the parties or anybody of
them may not be sufficient for exercising the power, but rather it ought to try
and be demonstrated that trial inside the chosen forum can prompt denial of
justice. The Court held that if the ends of justice so demanded and the transfer
of the suit are basic, there ought to be no delay to transfer the case.The
privilege of the dominus litis to pick the forum and consideration of
plaintiff's convenience and so on can't obscure the prerequisite of justice.
Justice must be done no matter what; if essential by the transfer of the case
from" one court to another.
This provision has been frequently invoked in marital matters, and for the most
part at the occurrence of the spouse. At the point when the couple are living
independently and the husband records - an petition for separation or brings
different procedures under the law identifying the marriage and separation at
the place where he is residing, which is normally the spot where the parties
last lived together, the wife, who has regularly come back to her parental home,
moves for transfer either on the ground that she can't stand to travel or that
she can't leave her child or that she confronts dangers when she goes to defend
the proceedings. The Court perpetually takes a thoughtful perspective towards
the wife's request for transfer, yet this is net dependable case. Court
dismisses the plea of the wife for the transfer of the matrimonial proceedings
from Mumbai to Palanpur.
In Shiv Kumari Devendra Ojha v. RamajorShitla Prasad Ojha case:
The court dismissed the transfer of an application for grant of a succession
certificate, from Gujarat to U.P, on a ground that the respondent was ready to
pay the expenses of the travel. The Court further stated that if the petitioner
is facing any difficulty in managing in any counsel due to economical problem
then she can file an application to recover the amount paid for the same from
Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to withdraw and transfer cases under
Article 139-A of the Indian Constitution:
Where cases including the same or considerably the same questions of law are
pending in the Supreme Court and one or more High Courts or, before two more
High Courts, and the Supreme Court is satisfied on its own motion or on an
application made by the Attorney General for India or by a party to any such
case, that such questions are significant questions of general importance
Article 139-A(1) of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to "withdraw"
the cases pending before the High Courts to itself and discard all the cases
without anyone else's interference. This provision is regularly invoked when the
constitutional validity of a central enactment is tested. Article 139-A (2)
empowers the Supreme Court if it seems that it is convenient so to accomplish
the ends of the justice, to transfer any case, appeal or different proceedings
pending before of any High Court to whatever other High Court.
In Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India
The withdrawal of the primary civil suit and criminal proceedings to the Supreme
Court was tested on the ground that the requirements of Article 139 (A) of the
Constitution were not fulfilled. In dismissing the request that the case
couldn't have been so withdrawn, the Supreme Court held that Article-139 did not
deplete its power of withdrawal and transfer and that its power under Article
136 and 142(1) were additionally accessible for the reason.
Right of the Plaintiff:
Plaintiff is Dominus Litis. Dominus Litis is a person to whom the suit belongs
and has the actual and direct interest in the suit. He has the right to choose
his own forum and normally this right of the plaintiff cannot be curtailed
either by the court or by the court. It has been mentioned under section 22. The
court in Indian Overseas Bank v. Chemical Construction Co. held that
plaintiff is the dominus litis and as such entitled to institute his suit in any
forum which the court allows. The forum should not be lightly changed and the
person cannot be compelled to go to another court with consequential expand in
inconvenience and expense of prosecuting his suit.
Balance of Convenience:
There is unanimity of opinion that balance of convenience is of prime
consideration for transfer of suit. The expression “balance of convenience” has
inspired deep legal concept and has obtain the gloss many judicial
interpretations. Restated in simple terms it is a question of fact in case.
Balance of convenience is neither the convenience of the plaintiff alone nor of
the defendant alone but of both. In determining the balance of convenience for
the trail of a suit, the court has to take into consideration five issues-
1.Convenience or inconvenience of the plaintiff and right of the
plaintiff to choose his own forum. The inconvenience that could have caused to
the defendant if the suit would have taken place in the forum chosen by the
plaintiff may now be caused to the plaintiff if the suit will get transferred to
2.Convenience and inconvenience of the defendant.
3.Convenience and inconvenience of the witness that is required for the
proper institution of the suit.
4.Convenience and inconvenience of a particular place of trail having
regard to the nature of the evidence on the main points involved in the suit and
also having regard to the doctrine of “forum convenience”.
5.Nature of issue in the suit.
In case of Guda Vijayalakshmi v. Guda Ramchandra Sekhara Sastrywhere the petitioner (wife) recorded a suit in forma pauper is seeking for maintenance from
the respondent (husband) in the court of, Eluru (Andhra Pradesh). On
the receipt of the notification of the case, the respondent filed a divorce case
against the petitioner under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the
court of the, Udaipur (Rajasthan). By the moment transfer petition filed under
section 25 C.P.C., 1908, the petitioner tried to get the suit at Udaipur
exchanged to Eluru. It was held that, on merits, it is convenient for the
ends of justice to exchange the respondent's suit pending in the District Court.
Udaipur (Rajasthan) to the District Court at Eluru (Andhra Pradesh), where both
the suits could be attempted together.
There should be a search for justice and the respective Court must be content
that justice could more likely be done between the parties by not permitting the
party to continue his case in the forum of his own choice. A mere balance of
convenience in favour of the trails in other forum, though a material
consideration, may not always be a sure criterion justifying transfer. In
“Indian Overseas Bank v. Chemical Construction Co. (1979)”the court held
that only balance of convenience for proceedings in another Court yet a material
consideration may not generally be a genuine criterion legitimizing the
transfer. The power of transfer of a civil proceedings to another Court gave
under Section 25 C.P.C. on the Supreme Court is far more extensive as is the
sufficiency of the expression "convenient in the interests of justice" which
outfits a general rule for the exercise of the power.
Thus the plaintiff asarbiter litishas the right to choose any forum that
allows him. And it has been held that it is a substantive right like a right to
appeal. But it subject to control under sections 22-24. The burden lies on the
applicant to make out a strong case for a transfer. Asmere balance of
convenience, in support of the trials in another forum,is not anadequate ground
though it is a significant consideration. As a general rule, the court should
not interfere unless the expenses and difficulties of the trial would be so
considerate as to lead to injustice or the case has been filed in a particular
court for the purpose of working injustice.
Transfer of cases from one court to another is a serious matter, because it
indirectly casts doubt on the integrity or competence of the judge from whom the
matter gets transferred. This should not be done without a proper or sufficient
cause. If there are sufficient causes for transferring a case from one court to
another, they must be clearly set out.
1.Reasonable apprehension in the sense of the party that he might not get
justice in the forum where the suit is pending – it was held by the court inRaghunandan
v. G. H. Chawlathata case must be exchanged if there is sensible realization
of a party to a suit that he won't not get justice in the forum where the case
is pending. This might be on the grounds that the Judge is biased or on the
grounds that there in the" surcharged atmosphere no just trial is feasible.
2.Where balance of Convenience - In a suit of Jotendro nath v. Raj
Kristowhere in a suit for partition instituted in the court, the parties
were residents of Calcutta and the major portion of immovable property was also
situated in Calcutta, the suit was transferred to the original side of the High
Court of Calcutta on the ground principally, of convenience.
3.To avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conflict of interests – in
case of Rajulu v. Govindanwhere two persons filed suit against each other
in different courts on the same cause of action, the court held desirable that
the suits should be tried by one and the same court.
4.Where common questions of fact and law arises between the party – in
case of Purna Chandra v. Samanthathe court held that where there are suits
in different courts which raise common questions of fact and law, the decisions
in which are interdependent, it is desirable that they should be tried together
by the same judge.
5.Where the judge is interested in one party –it was held in Gujarat
Electricity Board &Anr v. Atmaram Sungomal Poshanineither of the parties are
qualified for get a case transferred from one Bench to another, unless the Bench
is prejudiced or there are some reasonable justification for the same.
Transfer not allowed:
1.Mere balance of convenience to the applicant – in “Indian Overseas Bank
v. Chemical Construction Co.it was held by the court that the mere balance
of convenience for the trail in another Court though a material thought, may not
generally be a genuine criterion legitimizing the transfer.
2.Judge making adverse remarks regarding merits of the case – in case
of Gujarat Electricity Board & Anr vs Atmaram Sungomal Poshani the court
held that no privilege to get a suit transferred to some other Bench, can
legitimately be asserted simply in light of the fact that the Judges express
conclusion on the merits of the suit on the conclusion of hearing.
3.If the judge making an erroneous order – in case of Madan lal v. Babul
lalthe court held that the mere fact an erroneous order has been passed is
not in itself a ground for transfer as it does not necessarily lead to an
inference of bias.
4.Mere fact that the opposite party is a man of influence in the locality
– in case of Dr. Subramaniam Swamy v. Ramakrishna Hegdethe court held that
No prejudice, much less substantial prejudice would be caused to the respondent
if the suit is transferred as prayed.
5.Mere fact that the court is situated at a long distance from the
residence of the applicant - in case of Arvee Industries v. Rata Lalthe
court held that Since the cause of action has emerged out of the civil
proceedings initiated by the respondents in the Delhi Court, it will add to the
convenience of the parties so far as the creation of records.
The power of transfer must be practiced with great caution and attentiveness and
in light of a legitimate concern for justice. The court while looking at the
question must remember three clashing interests, the offended party has the
privilege to pick his own forum, the power and the obligation of the court to
guarantee a reasonable trial and the last agreement of justice. The principal
thought is necessity of justice. And, if the ends of the justice request
transfer of a suit, the court ought not to hesitate to act. At the same instant,
simple burden of the party or exposed or ambiguous affirmations by an interested
party about insecurity or even a risk to his life are not adequate to transfer a
case. Need of territorial jurisdiction of the court to which the suit is
transferred, however an applicable element is not definitive and won't obstacle
to the power of the court ordering the transfer.
Rajnath v. Vidynath, AIR 1953 All 772.
Shobhnaben D/O Pyarelal Kanojia v. Devendra Omprakashbhai Oberoi, (2004) 1
Khatija Bibi v. Taruk, 1883 ILR 9 Cal 980.
Umatool v. Kulsoom, 1909 ILR 10 Cal 980.
Shakuntala Modi v. Omprakash Bharuka, AIR 1991 SC 1104.
Mst. Basanti Devi v. Mst. Sahodra, AIR 1935 All 979.
Mrs. Maneka Sanjay Gandhi & Anr. v. Miss Rani Jethmalani, (1979) 4 SCC 167.
Basanti v. Sahodra, AIR 1935 All 979.
Gefferi v. Rukchand, (1889) Bom 178.
Mamta Gupta v. Mukund Kumar Gupta, 2000 (3) ALD 285, 2000 (3) ALT 211, II
(2000) DMC 403.
Western U.P. Electric & Power Supply Company Limited v. State Of U.P. & Anr.,
1970 AIR 21, 1969 SCR (3) 865.
Ramaswamy Chettyar, (1934) 12 Rang 548.
Datt Singh v.Tej Singh, AIR 1960 All 14.
State Bank of India v. M/s. Sakow Industries Faridabad (Pvt) Ltd., New
Delhi, AIR 1976 P H 321.
Balan vs Sivagiri Sree Narayana Dharma, AIR 2006 Ker 58, 2006 (4) CTC 273,
2006 (2) JCR 94, 2005 (4) KLT 865.
Alia Subbareddi v. Lanki Reddi Narayanaswatni Reddi and Ors.,AIR 1949 Mad
Executive Authority the Commissioner v. R.V. Palaniswami Pillai, AIR 1951
Mad 807, (1951) IMLJ 281.
Ouseph v. Pylee,1957 KLT 1221.
Adv.M.Philip Koshy v. Prof.Saji Chacko,Tr.P(C).No. 109 of 2010().
Appukuttan v. Z. Thomas Zakaria, AIR 2014 Mad.
Dr. Rajnath v. L. Vidya Ram & Ors., A.I.R. 1953 All 772.
Seshagiri Rao v.Somasundaramma, AIR 1949 Mad 65.
D Awastha Reddy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1998 AP 174 (DB).
Murarilal v.Raman Lal, AIR 1978 All 106.
 S. Mohd. Ali and Sons v.Madhavrao, AIR 1964 AP 132.
Pitambar Shivlal v. Patel Hargovanbhai Amthabhai, AIR 1972 Guj 119, (1972)
Bhagwati Pande v. Badri Pande, AIR 1931 All 574 (FB) : ILR (1932) 54 All
171 : 1931 All LJ 953.
Dr. Subramaniam Swamy v. Ramakrishna Hegde, AIR 1990 SC 113.
Kalpana Devi Prakash Thakar v. Dev PrakashThakar, AIR 1996.
Shiv Kumari Devendra Ojha v. RamajorShitla Prasad Ojha and Ors.. AIR 1997.
Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India AIR 1989 1 SC 674.
Indian Overseas Bank v. Chemical Construction Co., (1979) 4 SCC 358: AIR
1979 SC 1514: (1979) 3 SCR 920.
Guda Vijayalakshmi v. Guda Ramchandra, (1981) 2 SCC 646 (650): AIR 1981 SC
1143 (1145-46): (1981) 3 SCR 223.
Indian Overseas Bank v. Chemical Construction Co., AIR 1979 SC 1514.
Raghunandan v. G. H. Chawla, 1963 MPLJ (Notes) 117.
Jotendronath v. Raj Kristo, (1890)116 ILR Cal 771.
Rajulu v.Govindan, AIR (1938) ILR Mad 745.
Purna Chandra v. Samantha, AIR 1953 Ori 46.
Gujarat Electricity Board &Anr. v. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani, AIR 1989 SC
Indian Overseas Bank v. Chemical Construction Co., AIR 1979 SC 1514.
Gujarat Electricity Board & Anr. v. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani, AIR 1989 SC
Madan lal v. Babul Lal, AIR 1962 Mani 42.
Dr. Subramaniam Swamy v. Ramakrishna Hegde, (1990) 1 SCC 4: AIR 1990 SC
Arvee Industries v. Ratan Lal, (1977) 4 SCC 363: AIR 1977 SC 2429: (1978)1