Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.63 seconds)
Documents citing Rail Chand vs Alal Chand And Ors. on 27 May, 1977

Aviat Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. vs Magna Laboratories (Gujarat) Pvt. Ltd. ... on 29 September, 2005

"The learned Counsel for the plaintiff has cited before me an authority of this very court reported as Shri Rail Chand v. Shri Atal Chand and Ors., , wherein the Commercial Sub Judge holding in a suit that he had no jurisdiction to try the same ordered the placing of the suit before the District Judge for transfer of the same to a court of competent jurisdiction. That suit had been pending for a period of ten years and there was a long trial before the Commercial Sub Judge directing the placing of the case before the District Judge for transfer to another court was wrong as he had no jurisdiction to give such direction. It was further held that it was not in the interest of justice if the plaint were to be returned to the plaintiff and the case to be tried all over again when there had already been a long trial and the case had been pending for a period of ten years. Ultimately, adverting to Sub-section (5) of Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure it was held as following (at page 232):-
Delhi High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 16 - S Kumar - Full Document

Vogel Media International Gmbh And Anr. vs Jasu Shah And Ors. on 22 November, 2004

9. Section 24 of the Code deals with the general power of transfer and withdrawal of suits, appeals or other proceedings pending before the Subordinate Court or by the High Court or the District Court for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to them. The effect of sub-section (5) of Section 24 came to be considered by this Court in the case of Rail Chand v. Atal Chand and Ors. 1977 13 D.L.T. 153 and in the case of Pushpa Kapal v. Shiv Kumar 35 (1998) D.L.T. 187. In the former case it was held that although the Commercial Sub-Judge was not empowered to direct the placing of the file before the District Judge for transfer yet this case cannot be satisfactorily disposed of by merely rejecting the plaint. It would not be in the interests of justice if the plaint were returned and the case had to be tried all over again. In the latter case after an order of return of the plaint had been made by the Trial Court for presentation to the Court of District Judge due to enhancement in the pecuniary value of the suit which the Trial Court was not competent to try but before representing the plaint to the Court of the District Judge, an application under Section 24 read with Section 151 CPC was moved on behalf of the plaintiff in the High Court. Before the High Court it was pleaded on behalf of the plaintiff that if only the plaint was to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation of the same to the Court of District Judge, de nove proceedings would have to be started by the court of the District Judg, which would put the plaintiff to unnecessary harassment culminating into unnecessary delay in the disposal of the suit, and that if the suit is transferred by the High Court to the Court of District Judge, the District Judge would not have to record the evidence afresh and would take up the case from the stage it had reached and would thus be left only with the task of hearing the final arguments in the matter. The Court invoking the provisions of sub-section 5 of Section 4 to the aid of the plaintiff held as under:
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 16 - R C Jain - Full Document

Union Of India vs M/S Jcb India Ltd on 27 September, 2019

Before re- presenting the suit to the District Judge, however, an application under Section 24 read with Section 151, CPC was made to the High Court for transfer of the plaint to prevent unnecessary hardship inherent in the rehearing of the entire matter de novo; in Rail Chand v. Atal Chand, 13 (1977) DLT 153, the suit was not tried afresh, but that was because instead of returning the plaint, the High Court ordered the transfer of the matter to the Commercial Sub-Judge.
Delhi High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - G S Sistani - Full Document

Mca No.01/09 vs Sh. Prabhat Kumar Singh & Ors on 27 April, 2009

12. If the Ld. ADJ was of the opinion that the suits were overvalued and were bound to be returned to be tried by the Ld. Civil Judge and the Ld. ADJ was having no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suits, the Ld. ADJ should have returned the suits under Order 7 R 10 CPC and he could not sent it to the Ld. District Judge as was done vide order dated 12.5.2007. However, Ld. District Judge was within his powers under Section 24 of the CPC to have transferred the suits to be tried by the court having proper jurisdiction. It is to be noted at the outset that the legal status of the post of Ld. District Judge qua the other Ld. Additional District Judges' is one that of "first among the equals" but the only exception is Section 24 of the CPC wherein it is mentioned in sub clause (3)(a) that the court of additional and assistant judges shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Ld. District 13/47 Judge. As such, the Ld. ADJ should have returned the suits to the plaintiff/appellant instead of sending it to the Ld. District Judge. I am repeating this aspect because it will have its own effect on the merits of the issue involved before me in these appeals, as discussed below and this was the exact situation before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case titled Sh. Rail Chand Vs. Sh. Alal Chand and others reported as ILR (1978) I Delhi page 229 wherein it was specifically held that although the Commercial Sub- Judge was not empowered to direct the placing of the file before the District Judge for transfer and he had no jurisdiction to direct the file to be placed before the District Judge for transferring it to a competent Court, but the Hon'ble High Court in exercise of its power under Section 24 and in the circumstances of the said case directed the transfer because substantial proceedings in the trial of the suit involved in the said case had already taken place.
Delhi District Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Purshottam Lal Tandon vs M/S City Super Market & Ors on 25 July, 2024

22. Another decision of this Court to which reference was made by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs is the decision in Shri Rail Chand vs. Shri Atal Chand and Others, 1977 SCC OnLine Del 66 wherein this Court was dealing with a situation where due to change in pecuniary jurisdiction on account of amendment in the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, the Commercial Judge therein at the time when the case was ready for final hearing decided a preliminary issue of jurisdiction and ordered the case to be sent to the District Judge for transfer to a competent court. In this factual backdrop it was held as under:
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Narendar Singh And Ors. vs The Indian Institute Of Architects on 28 November, 2013

Before re-presenting the suit to the District Judge, however, an application under Section 24 read with Section 151, CPC was made to the High Court for transfer of the plaint to prevent unnecessary hardship inherent in the rehearing of the entire matter de novo; in Rail Chand v. Atal Chand and Others, 13 (1977) DLT 153, the suit was not tried afresh, but that was because instead of FAO(OS)64/2013 Page 10 returning the plaint, the High Court ordered the transfer of the matter to the Commercial Sub-Judge.
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 4 - S R Bhat - Full Document

Pushpa Kapa vs Sfflv Kumar on 21 April, 1988

(4) SUB-SECTION (5) of this provision was inserted by Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1976 for the first time and its insertion was necessitated for the reason that some of the High Courts in India were of the view that suit/appeal/proceeding pending before a court must be understood in the sense that the same was duly pending meaning thereby that it was pending in a court of competent jurisdiction, and if it was pending in a court without jurisdiction, the same could not be transferred from that court to another court. In order to do away with the mischief caused by the time consumed in recording the evidence sub-section (5) was inserted in section 24 as a result of which a suit of proceeding can be transferred under this section from a court which has no jurisdiction to try it and the application of this provision of law is most suitable in the circumstances of the case like the suit in hand where, as already pointed cut above, a fresh exercise of recording the entire evidence would have to be gone through unnecessarily by the court of the District Judge if the order dated 11th January 1988 directing the return of the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation to the court of the District Judge is kept intact and enforced and which unnecessary harassment can be obviated by ordering the transfer of this suit to the court of the District Judge who, in which contingency, would be able to hear arguments of the parties straight away without recording the evidence afresh. Thus, sub-section (5) appears to have been inserted in section 24 to do away with this mischief and is a very just provision meant for application in such like cases. (5) The learned counsel for the plaintiff has cited before me an authority of this very court reported as Shri Rail Chand vs. Shri Alal Chand and others. 2nd (1978) I Delhi 229 wherein the Commercial Sub Judge holding in a suit that he had no jurisdiction to try the same, ordered the placing of the suit before the District Judge for transfer of the same to a court of competent jurisdiction. That suit had been pending for a period of ten years and there was a Ions; trial before the Commercial Sub Judge. It was held that the order passed by the Commercial Sub Judge directing the placing of the case before the District Judge for transfer to another court was wrong as he had no jurisdiction to give such direction. It was further held that it was not in the interest of justice if the plaint were to be returned to the plaintiff and the case to be tried all over again when there had already been a long trial and the case had been pending for a period of ten years. Ultimately, adverting to sub-section (5) of section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure it Was held as following (at page 232):- "This is a new power which can be most usefully exercised in the case. Hence, although the Commercial Sub-Judge did not have jurisdiction to try the suit, this is a suitable case which should be transferred under section 24 of the Code from the Court of Commercial Sub-Judge to the Court of the District Judge." (6) The contention of the learned counsel for the defendant that after the passing of the order dated 11th January 1988 358 ordering the return of the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation to the court of the District Judge this suit cannot be said to be pending in this court for which reason there can arise no question of its transfer by this Court to the court of the District Judge under sub-section 1(a) of section 24, is not correct and cannot be accepted inasmuch as, as already pointed out above, the plaintiff while appearing before the Deputy Registrar on 14th January 1988 did not receive back the plaint but instead filed this application under section 24 for the transfer of the suit by this Court to the court of the District Judge, as a result of which the suit continued pending in the High Court even though the High Court did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to try it. (7) In view of what has been stated above, I order the transfer of this suit to the Court of the learned District Judge who shall decide the suit himself or assign it to any other Additional District Judge for this purpose. No order as to costs. This disposes of this application. Parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge on 16-5-88.
Delhi High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Kalu Ram vs Sh. Pratap & Anr on 9 March, 2009

8. I have gone through the order dated 11.12.2007 passed by the Ld. District Judge wherein the suit no. 122/99 titled Kalu Ram Vs. Pratap was withdrawn from the court of Ld. Civil Judge and was assigned to the court of Ld. ADJ and as such there is no infirmity in the order of the Ld. District Judge and reliance can be placed upon a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi titled Shri Rail Chand Vs. Shri Alal Chand and others reported as ILR (1978) 1 Delhi wherein in almost identical circumstances when the case was fixed for final arguments the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that although the order of the Ld. Civil Judge sending the case to the Ld. District Judge to be assigned to the competent court of jurisdiction instead of returning the plaint was wrong but in such cases the Ld. District Judge or 6/6 the Hon'ble High Court can exercise its power under Section 24(5) CPC and the case was ordered to be transferred accordingly.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next