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 nature.

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.

Section 22:
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.[1]

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.[2]

A plaintiff as arbiter it is has right to select a forum on his own choice.[3]This right is controlled by the power of transfer; but this is a right which should not lightly to be interfered with.[4]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.[5]In Mst. Basanti Devi v. Mst. Sahodra,[6]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.[7]

Notice: -
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.[8]But an order of transfer without notice is without jurisdiction.

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.[9]

Section 23:
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 court.
·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,[10]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,[11]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.

Subordinate Court:
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.[12]

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.[13]In State Bank of India v. M/s. Sakow Industries Faridabad (Pvt) Ltd., New Delhi,[14], 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.

Section 24:
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 party.

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.[15]

In Alia Subbareddi v. Lanki Reddi Narayanaswatni Reddi and Ors,.[16]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.[17] In Ouseph v. Pylee,[18]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, suo motu.

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.[19]

In Appukuttan v.Z. Thomas Zakaria[20]-
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 court.
As laid down by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Dr. Rajnath v. L. Vidya Ram & Ors.,[21] 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.[22]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 government.[23]

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[24]
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.

‘Court’Meaning:
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.[25]

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.[26]

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."[27]

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.

Section 25:
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.[28]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.[29]

In Shiv Kumari Devendra Ojha v. RamajorShitla Prasad Ojha case[30]:
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 the respondent.

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[31]
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.

Grounds:
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.[32] 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 other forum.
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 Sastry[33]where 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.

Justice:
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)”[34]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 allowed:
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. Chawla[35]thata 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 Kristo[36]where 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. Govindan[37]where 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. Samantha[38]the 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 Poshani[39]neither 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.[40]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 [41]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 lal[42]the 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 Hegde[43]the 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 Lal[44]the 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.

Conclusion
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.

End-Notes
[1]Rajnath v. Vidynath, AIR 1953 All 772.
[2]Shobhnaben D/O Pyarelal Kanojia v. Devendra Omprakashbhai Oberoi, (2004) 1 GLR 893.
[3]Khatija Bibi v. Taruk, 1883 ILR 9 Cal 980.
[4]Umatool v. Kulsoom, 1909 ILR 10 Cal 980.
[5]Shakuntala Modi v. Omprakash Bharuka, AIR 1991 SC 1104.
[6]Mst. Basanti Devi v. Mst. Sahodra, AIR 1935 All 979.
[7]Mrs. Maneka Sanjay Gandhi & Anr. v. Miss Rani Jethmalani, (1979) 4 SCC 167.
[8]Basanti v. Sahodra, AIR 1935 All 979.
[9]Gefferi v. Rukchand, (1889) Bom 178.
[10]Mamta Gupta v. Mukund Kumar Gupta, 2000 (3) ALD 285, 2000 (3) ALT 211, II (2000) DMC 403.
[11]Western U.P. Electric & Power Supply Company Limited v. State Of U.P. & Anr., 1970 AIR 21, 1969 SCR (3) 865.
[12]Ramaswamy Chettyar, (1934) 12 Rang 548.
[13]Datt Singh v.Tej Singh, AIR 1960 All 14.
[14]State Bank of India v. M/s. Sakow Industries Faridabad (Pvt) Ltd., New Delhi, AIR 1976 P H 321.
[15]Balan vs Sivagiri Sree Narayana Dharma, AIR 2006 Ker 58, 2006 (4) CTC 273, 2006 (2) JCR 94, 2005 (4) KLT 865.
[16]Alia Subbareddi v. Lanki Reddi Narayanaswatni Reddi and Ors.,AIR 1949 Mad 283.
[17]Executive Authority the Commissioner v. R.V. Palaniswami Pillai, AIR 1951 Mad 807, (1951) IMLJ 281.
[18]Ouseph v. Pylee,1957 KLT 1221.
[19]Adv.M.Philip Koshy v. Prof.Saji Chacko,Tr.P(C).No. 109 of 2010().
[20]Appukuttan v. Z. Thomas Zakaria, AIR 2014 Mad.
[21]Dr. Rajnath v. L. Vidya Ram & Ors., A.I.R. 1953 All 772.
[22]Seshagiri Rao v.Somasundaramma, AIR 1949 Mad 65.
[23]D Awastha Reddy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1998 AP 174 (DB).
[24]Murarilal v.Raman Lal, AIR 1978 All 106.
[25] S. Mohd. Ali and Sons v.Madhavrao, AIR 1964 AP 132.
[26]Pitambar Shivlal v. Patel Hargovanbhai Amthabhai, AIR 1972 Guj 119, (1972) GLR 527.
[27]Bhagwati Pande v. Badri Pande, AIR 1931 All 574 (FB) : ILR (1932) 54 All 171 : 1931 All LJ 953.
[28]Dr. Subramaniam Swamy v. Ramakrishna Hegde, AIR 1990 SC 113.
[29]Kalpana Devi Prakash Thakar v. Dev PrakashThakar, AIR 1996.
[30]Shiv Kumari Devendra Ojha v. RamajorShitla Prasad Ojha and Ors.. AIR 1997.
[31]Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India AIR 1989 1 SC 674.
[32]Indian Overseas Bank v. Chemical Construction Co., (1979) 4 SCC 358: AIR 1979 SC 1514: (1979) 3 SCR 920.
[33]Guda Vijayalakshmi v. Guda Ramchandra, (1981) 2 SCC 646 (650): AIR 1981 SC 1143 (1145-46): (1981) 3 SCR 223.
[34]Indian Overseas Bank v. Chemical Construction Co., AIR 1979 SC 1514.
[35]Raghunandan v. G. H. Chawla, 1963 MPLJ (Notes) 117.
[36]Jotendronath v. Raj Kristo, (1890)116 ILR Cal 771.
[37]Rajulu v.Govindan, AIR (1938) ILR Mad 745.
[38]Purna Chandra v. Samantha, AIR 1953 Ori 46.
[39]Gujarat Electricity Board &Anr. v. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani, AIR 1989 SC 1433 (1436).
[40]Indian Overseas Bank v. Chemical Construction Co., AIR 1979 SC 1514.
[41]Gujarat Electricity Board & Anr. v. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani, AIR 1989 SC 1433 (1436).
[42]Madan lal v. Babul Lal, AIR 1962 Mani 42.
[43]Dr. Subramaniam Swamy v. Ramakrishna Hegde, (1990) 1 SCC 4: AIR 1990 SC 113.
[44]Arvee Industries v. Ratan Lal, (1977) 4 SCC 363: AIR 1977 SC 2429: (1978)1 SCR 418.