# TRANSFER OF CASES

- **Citation:** C.L. No. 51
- **Court:** Allahabad High Court
- **Decided:** 1960-09-23
- **Case number:** C.L. No. 51
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/transfer-of-cases-163666
- **Pages:** 1

## Text

415
CHAPTER - XII
JUDICIAL-MISCELLANEOUS

1.
TRANSFER OF CASES
(i)
Regular cases
C.L. No. 51 dated 23rd September, 1960

Appeals from the orders and sentences of the Assistant Sessions Judges should
ordinarily be heard by Sessions Judges themselves and not transferred to Additional
Sessions Judges.
G.L. No. 42 dated 3rd November, 1932

The instructions given below apply to additional courts other than those, which
have been working regularly and are more or less in the nature of permanent courts or
additional courts created for the trial of particular cases.

There is a tendency in subordinate courts to postpone complicated cases and to
take up the disposal of such cases as are short or convenient and when an additional court
is created such old and complicated cases are often transferred to it in order to give relief
to the permanent court. The Presiding Officers of such additional courts are generally less
experienced than those of permanent courts, and such an arrangement is not satisfactory,
and is disapproved by the High Court.
C.L. No. 100-B dated 12th September, 1952

Stayed cases should not be transferred to additional courts of Civil Judges or
Munsifs. Old cases should be retained on the file of permanent courts and only fresh
institutions should be transferred to additional courts for disposal.
C.L. No. 43/IV-g-27 dated 13th April, 1979

The court has noticed that cases below Rs. 10,000/- in valuation are still pending
in the courts of Civil Judges and have not been transferred to the courts of Munsifs who
have been conferred with the powers to try such cases. Though the principle that cases
should normally be tried by the lowest court competent to try them cannot be given the
shape of a peremptory rule, the same cannot be ignored. It does not only save the time of
court of the higher jurisdiction for doing more important work but it also safeguards the
right of the litigants of having their first appeal heard and decided by the appellate court
of their respective districts. The above principle should always be kept in mind while
making distribution of the work in the district.
G.L. No. 9/B-9 dated 1st May, 1941

In transferring criminal cases, the practice of transferring only difficult and
complicated cases of the permanent judge's own file or lengthy and involved appeals is to
be deprecated. The Court is unwilling to lay down any hard and fast rule which might
inconvenience Sessions Judges in their discretion to transfer either cases from their own
file or new institutions to the additional courts, but the Court insists that Sessions Judges
must not place an unfair burden upon additional courts by giving to them only difficult
and complicated work. The Court suggests as a broad principle to be followed that unless