The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a Special Appeal is not maintainable against a Single Judge’s order on transfer applications under Section 24 CPC. Such orders are procedural, not “judgments”, and are barred from appeal under Section 105 of the CPC.
The Allahabad High Court has clearly held that a Special Appeal filed under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, cannot be entertained against an order passed by a Single Judge on a transfer application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908.
The Court ruled that such an order is neither a “judgment” under the High Court Rules nor appealable in view of the statutory bar under Section 105 of the CPC.
The decision was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Prashant Kumar while dismissing a Special Appeal filed by Vinay Mohan, who appeared before the Court in person.
The appeal challenged the judgment and order dated 20 May 2025 passed by a Single Judge in Transfer Application (Civil) No. 166 of 2022.
At the very beginning of the hearing, the Bench raised a preliminary issue on whether the Special Appeal itself was maintainable under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.
This provision allows an appeal to the Division Bench from a “judgment” of a Single Judge, provided such judgment is not passed in appellate jurisdiction and relates to a decree or order of a court subordinate to the High Court.
The appellant-in-person requested the Court to consider the merits of the case and argued that the appeal was maintainable.
He relied upon several judgments, including K.V. Balan and Anr. Vs. Sivagiri Sree Narayana Dharma Sanghom Trust and Ors., Neelam Kanwar Vs. Devinder Singh Kanwar, Krishna Veni Nagam Vs. Harish Nagam, Shyam Sel and Power Limited and Anr. Vs. Shyam Steel Industries Ltd., and Amruta Vs. Sachin. However, the Court noted that none of these decisions supported the appellant’s case in the specific context of an order passed under Section 24 of the CPC.
While examining the issue, the Division Bench focused on whether an order allowing or rejecting a transfer application under Section 24 CPC could be treated as a “judgment” under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the High Court Rules.
The Bench relied heavily on an earlier coordinate Bench judgment in Amit Khanna Vs. Smt. Suchi Khanna, which had already settled this legal position.
The Court reiterated that an order under Section 24 CPC does not decide the rights of the parties nor does it dispose of the suit or proceedings. The Bench observed:
“Such an order neither affects the merit of the controversy between the parties to the suit nor does it terminate or dispose of the suit on any ground. Therefore, an order of transfer cannot be placed in the same category as an order rejecting a plaint or one dismissing a suit on a preliminary ground.”
The Court explained that transfer orders are routine procedural orders passed only to ensure smooth progress of a case. They may cause inconvenience to one party, but they do not decide anything finally. In this context, the Bench further stated:
“Such an order is made only to facilitate the final decision but it in itself is not a decision at all to be called a judgment.”
The High Court also examined the issue from the angle of statutory bar under the CPC. It noted that the right to file an appeal does not exist automatically and must be specifically provided by law.
Referring to Sections 104 and 105 of the CPC, the Court observed that since the CPC does not provide an appeal against an order under Section 24, such an appeal is clearly barred.
The Bench agreed with the reasoning in Amit Khanna and held that allowing such appeals would amount to creating a right of appeal where none exists under law. The Court categorically observed:
“If any contrary interpretation is made and the appeal is held to be maintainable it would amount to conferring jurisdiction of appeal which otherwise is not specifically provided but is expressly as well as by implication excluded by Section 105 C.P.C.”
The Court also dealt with judgments relied upon by the appellant. It clarified that the Supreme Court’s decision in Subal Paul Vs. Malina Paul was related to proceedings under the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which is a special law and therefore not applicable to cases under Section 24 CPC.
Similarly, the Court distinguished the Division Bench judgment in Mahendra Pratap Bhatt Vs. Saroj Mahana, pointing out that the appeal in that case was entertained only because the impugned order was found to be without jurisdiction and was effectively passed under Article 226 of the Constitution. Since no such jurisdictional issue arose in the present case, the said judgment could not help the appellant.
After considering all aspects, the Division Bench conclusively held that the Special Appeal was not maintainable on two clear grounds: first, because an order under Section 24 CPC is not a “judgment” under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, and second, because such an appeal is expressly and impliedly barred under Section 105 of the CPC.
The Court ultimately concluded:
“Accordingly, the special appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.”
Case Title:
Vinay Mohan Vs. Smt. Nidhi Singh and Anr.
Special Appeal Defective No. 387 of 2025
Read Judgement:
Read More Reports On Rape Case
