Power of Supreme Court to transfer suits, etc
Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 deals with power of Supreme Court to transfer suits, etc. On the application of a party, and after notice to the parties, and after hearing such of them as desire to be heard, the Supreme Court may, at any stage, if satisfied that an order under this section is expedient for the ends of justice, direct that any suit, appeal or other proceeding be transferr The Act came into force on 01 Jan 1909.
1[25. Power of Supreme Court to transfer suits, etc.--(1) On the application of a party, and after notice to the parties, and after hearing such of them as desire to be heard, the Supreme Court may, at any stage, if satisfied that an order under this section is expedient for the ends of justice, direct that any suit, appeal or other proceeding be transferred from a High Court or other Civil Court in one State to a High Court or other Civil Court in another State.
(2) Every application under this section shall be made by a motion which shall be supported by an affidavit.
(3) The Court to which such suit, appeal or other proceeding is transferred shall, subject to any special directions in the order of transfer, either retry it or proceed from the stage at which it was transferred to it.
(4) In dismissing any application under this section, the Supreme Court may, if it is of opinion that the application was frivolous or vexatious, order the applicant to pay by way of compensation to any person who has opposed the application such sum, not exceeding two thousand rupees, as it considers appropriate in the circumstances of the case.
(5) The law applicable to any suit, appeal or other proceeding transferred under this section shall be the law which the Court in which the suit, appeal or other proceeding was originally instituted ought to have applied to such suit, appeal or proceeding.]
Section 25, The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act 5 of 1908).
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Durgesh Sharma vs Jayshree
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A High Court has no power, authority or jurisdiction to transfer a case, appeal or other proceeding pending in a Court subordinate to it to any Court subordinate to another High Court. Only the Supreme Court of India, in exercise of power under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, can effect such transfer. Section 23(3) of the CPC is merely a procedural provision specifying the forum for making an application and does not confer substantive power of transfer. Where courts are subordinate to different High Courts, application for transfer must be made to the Supreme Court under Section 25. The provisions of Sections 22 to 25 of the CPC relating to transfer are exhaustive in nature, and no other provision or inherent power can be invoked to effect inter-High Court transfers.
On this section: Exclusively vests in the Supreme Court the power to transfer any suit, appeal or other proceeding from one High Court to another High Court or from one Civil Court in a State to any other Civil Court in another State. This is the only provision applicable when courts are subordinate to different High Courts. Section 25 is a complete, self-contained code dealing with both substantive and procedural aspects of such transfers.
-
Dav(mat) Higher Sec. School Etc. Etc vs Dav College Managing Committee
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The paramount consideration for the exercise of power to transfer suits under Section 25 of the Civil Procedure Code is whether the ends of justice demand such transfer. While balance of convenience and inconvenience of parties, witnesses, and evidence may be relevant considerations, they are not sufficient in themselves. The Court must determine whether the trial in the chosen forum will result in denial of justice. Mere inconvenience to defendants due to distance, language, or age of representatives, without showing that fair trial would be denied, is insufficient ground for transfer, especially when allowing such transfer would defeat the legislative purpose of jurisdictional provisions in substantive law (such as Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act) and would open floodgates for similar transfer petitions by similarly situated defendants across the country.
On this section: Power of Supreme Court to transfer suits, appeals or other proceedings from one court to another court in different state when satisfied that such order is expedient for the ends of justice. Court applied the principle that mere convenience of parties is insufficient; the paramount consideration must be the ends of justice.
-
Bhavika Bharti vs Nakul Mahajan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Supreme Court of India possesses constitutional power under Articles 32, 136, and 142 of the Constitution to transfer cases from courts in one state to courts in another state, notwithstanding the restrictions in Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure which applies only to intra-state transfers. The exercise of this power is discretionary and depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, including the location of parties, availability of evidence, and need for effective administration of justice.
On this section: Initially cited by petitioners for transfer, but Court noted that while Section 25 limits intra-state transfers, it does not limit Supreme Court's constitutional power to transfer cases across state boundaries
-
Bhiaru Ram vs Central Bureau of Investigation
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The power to transfer a criminal case under Section 406 CrPC is available only when it is expedient for the ends of justice. Mere inconvenience to parties and witnesses, however genuine, is not a sufficient ground for transfer. A party seeking transfer must demonstrate a reasonable apprehension that justice will not be done if the case remains in the chosen forum. The court must be satisfied that the trial in the current forum will result in denial of justice or failure of justice before exercising its discretionary power to transfer. Convenience is a permissible consideration only when coupled with reasonable apprehension of impropriety or denial of justice.
On this section: The Court cited a parallel principle from civil procedure regarding transfer of suits to illustrate that the 'ends of justice' standard requires more than convenience and involves assessment of whether the chosen forum will result in denial of justice.
-
Jitesh Kishore Tolani vs Vinisha Jitesh Tolani @ M. Laghmani
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a matrimonial matter governed by Hindu personal law is instituted by husband against wife, such proceedings can be transferred to a jurisdiction where the wife resides and has established residence, even if the marriage was solemnized and registered in another State. The applicability of personal law (Hindu Marriage Act) supersedes purely territorial claims based on where marriage was performed or registered under local Civil Code, and considerations of wife's convenience and ability to defend the proceedings are paramount in determining appropriate forum for matrimonial disputes.
On this section: Authority for court to transfer cases for convenience of parties and interests of justice; used as the basis for the transfer petition
-
Sheetal Kharb vs Rinku Kumar Pawariya
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Supreme Court of India, exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, can dissolve a marriage by mutual consent of both spouses even when a matrimonial petition is pending before a lower court, provided: (a) the settlement agreement reached by the parties is lawful and does not violate any statutory or constitutional provisions; (b) both parties voluntarily consent to the dissolution and the terms of settlement; (c) the terms of settlement adequately address the financial and personal rights of both parties; and (d) the Court is satisfied that accepting the settlement and granting dissolution would do complete justice between the parties. In such cases, the Court's inherent powers under Article 142 override the need for the matter to proceed through conventional matrimonial law proceedings, enabling expeditious resolution through mediation and settlement mechanisms.
On this section: Used as the statutory basis for filing a transfer petition in the Supreme Court seeking transfer of a case from one court to another court of competent jurisdiction. The petitioner invoked this section to request transfer of the matrimonial petition from Ghaziabad Additional Family Court-II to Dwarka District Courts, New Delhi.
-
Priyanka Srivastava @ Priyanka vs Ripunjay Singh Rathore
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When parties to matrimonial litigation reach a lawful settlement agreement providing for financial compensation and transfer of property/jewelry, and both parties voluntarily consent to dissolution of marriage without any coercion or undue influence, the Supreme Court may, exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, accept the settlement agreement, grant decree of divorce by mutual consent, and quash all connected civil and criminal proceedings between the parties in the interest of complete justice and finality, provided the terms are lawful and there are no legal impediments to acceptance.
On this section: Jurisdiction to transfer cases between courts for convenience of parties and administration of justice; Supreme Court invoked this section as basis for transfer petition but ultimately disposed it through settlement mechanism
-
Noopur Agarwal vs Pawan Gulgulia
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When parties to a matrimonial dispute arrive at a lawful settlement agreement through court-sponsored mediation and seek divorce by mutual consent, the Supreme Court may exercise its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve the marriage and grant a decree of divorce by mutual consent, provided the terms of settlement are found to be lawful and there is no legal impediment to accepting them, thereby enabling the court to do complete justice between the parties and avoid prolonged litigation.
On this section: Section 25 provides basis for transfer petition - petitioner sought to transfer matrimonial suit from District Court at Barasat, West Bengal to Family Court at Dindoshi, Mumbai under this section
-
Manisha Keyal vs Manoj Kansal
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When matrimonial proceedings involving divorce and maintenance are pending in multiple courts across different states, the Supreme Court may, at the joint request of parties and their counsel, exercise its transfer power to consolidate all proceedings in a single competent jurisdiction to ensure expeditious disposal and prevent forum shopping or procedural complications.
On this section: Applied to authorize transfer of the civil divorce petition from Family Court, Jind, Haryana to Court of competent jurisdiction at Patiala House, Delhi
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO.278 OF 2023 RINKU BAHETI … PETITIONER VERSUS SANDESH SHARDA … RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T NAGARATHNA, J. This transfer petition has been filed by the petitioner-wife under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "CPC"), seeking the following reliefs: "a) Grant transfer of Divorce Petition case filed under section 13 (1) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 bearing RCS(HM) No. 1379 of 2022 titled as Sandesh Sharda Versus Rinku Baheti pending in the Hon'ble Court of Ld. Principal …
Questions about Section 25
What have the courts held on Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
Durgesh Sharma vs Jayshree (26 Sep 2008) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Exclusively vests in the Supreme Court the power to transfer any suit, appeal or other proceeding from one High Court to another High Court or from one Civil Court in a State to any other Civil Court in another State. This is the only provision applicable when courts are subordinate to different High Courts. Section 25 is a complete, self-contained code dealing with both substantive and procedural aspects of such transfers. Another 8 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2008 to 2024.
How do I find court cases under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: CPC 25, section 25 CPC, section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure. People searching for it also type cpc 25(d). Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 9 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Durgesh Sharma vs Jayshree (26 Sep 2008).
When did Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure come into force?
Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, cited as CPC 25, came into force on 01 Jan 1909, having been enacted on 21 Mar 1908. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 115. Revision2475 words
- 60. Property liable to attachment and sale in execution of decree1869 words
- 2. Definitions890 words
- 9. Courts to try all civil suits unless barred714 words
- 42. Powers of Court in executing transferred decree653 words
- 92. Public charities610 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.