Introduction:

The Allahabad High Court, in Preeti Mishra and Another v. Vishnu Kant Tripathi and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 501, clarified the scope and object of the transfer power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court held that where two suits between the same parties arise from the same transaction or document and involve substantially identical issues, the subsequently instituted suit should ordinarily be transferred to the court where the earlier suit is already pending, unless compelling reasons exist to justify a different course. Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava observed that such a course promotes judicial consistency, avoids conflicting judgments, and ensures efficient administration of justice.

The dispute centred around a registered adoption deed executed between the parties under which a minor girl was allegedly given in adoption to the applicants. According to the applicants, the child had been living with them since the adoption and had become an integral part of their family. When the respondents allegedly attempted to reclaim the child, the applicants instituted a civil suit before the competent court at Kanpur Nagar seeking a declaration that the adoption deed was valid, legal and binding. Subsequently, the respondents instituted another suit before the court at Kannauj seeking cancellation of the same adoption deed. Apprehending conflicting decisions by two different courts concerning the same document, the applicants approached the High Court under Section 24 CPC seeking transfer of the later suit to Kanpur Nagar.

Arguments of the Parties:

The applicants contended that both suits arose from the very same registered adoption deed and that the validity of the document formed the core issue in each proceeding. They argued that allowing the suits to continue before different courts would inevitably result in duplication of evidence, unnecessary expenditure of judicial time and the possibility of contradictory judgments regarding the same adoption deed. They therefore submitted that the later suit should be transferred to the court where the earlier suit was already pending so that the entire controversy could be adjudicated comprehensively by one court.

The respondents, through their counsel, informed the Court that they had no objection to the transfer of the subsequently instituted suit. Although they did not oppose the relief sought, the matter still required judicial consideration because the power under Section 24 CPC cannot be exercised merely on the basis of consent between the parties and must satisfy the statutory objective of advancing the administration of justice.

Court’s Judgment:

Allowing the transfer application, the Allahabad High Court held that the power under Section 24 CPC is equitable and discretionary, intended not merely to address inconvenience to parties but to ensure fair, effective and efficient administration of justice. The Court observed that transfer jurisdiction enables the High Court to regulate proceedings so that connected disputes are adjudicated in a coordinated and consistent manner.

Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava noted that the validity of the registered adoption deed constituted the foundational issue in both suits. Since the evidence, witnesses and legal questions involved in the two proceedings would substantially overlap, separate trials before different courts would unnecessarily duplicate judicial effort and create a real possibility of inconsistent or conflicting decrees concerning the same document.

The Court emphasised that where two suits involve substantially identical subject matter and arise from the same transaction, the court in which the earlier proceeding is pending ordinarily becomes the appropriate forum for deciding the subsequent proceeding as well. Such an approach promotes judicial consistency, procedural economy and certainty in adjudication while preventing conflicting findings on identical issues.

The Bench further clarified that although the respondents had expressed no objection to the transfer, consent alone cannot justify the exercise of powers under Section 24 CPC. The Court is independently required to examine whether the proposed transfer would truly advance the ends of justice. The absence of opposition is only one relevant factor and does not substitute judicial satisfaction regarding the necessity of transfer.

After examining the facts, the Court found that the earlier suit challenging the validity of the adoption deed had already been instituted before the competent court at Kanpur Nagar. The subsequent suit filed at Kannauj sought cancellation of the very same document. Since any finding in one suit would directly affect the outcome of the other, adjudication by separate courts was neither desirable nor conducive to efficient judicial administration.

The Court also recorded that no prejudice would be caused to either party if the transfer was allowed, particularly because the respondents themselves had not opposed the application. In these circumstances, the Bench concluded that transferring the later suit to the court where the earlier proceedings were pending would best serve the interests of justice.

Accordingly, the Allahabad High Court allowed the transfer application and directed that the subsequently instituted suit be transferred to the competent court at Kanpur Nagar. The judgment reiterates that the objective of Section 24 CPC extends beyond the convenience of litigants and is fundamentally aimed at ensuring consistency, avoiding conflicting decisions and promoting efficient judicial administration where multiple proceedings arise from the same transaction or document.