Transfer of suits between states under Section 24 CPC remains an exceptional measure; the Gauhati High Court clarifies that mere allegations of threat, absent objective supporting material, are insufficient to justify transfer. The Court upholds established precedent, emphasizes the importance of trying suits where the property is situated, and issues safeguards for ensuring a fair and intimidation-free trial.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | Tr.P.(C)./68/2015 of SHAH NEWAZ KHAN and 5 ORS Vs THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 5 ORS |
| CNR | GAHC010131342015 |
| Date of Registration | 18-09-2015 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Of |
| Judgment Author | HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG |
| Court | Gauhati High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Gauhati High Court and persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms established Supreme Court precedent; follows Supreme Court directions |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure |
| Questions of Law | Whether a civil suit can be transferred from one state to another based solely on alleged apprehension of threat and prejudice. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The transfer of a civil suit between states under Section 24 CPC is an exceptional measure and should ordinarily happen only where compelling, real, and substantiated apprehensions of injustice exist. The Court found that the petitioners’ apprehension was not supported by any objective material (such as police complaints or applications to the trial court). The proceedings had already continued for years after the alleged threat, and there was no contemporaneous evidence of intimidation affecting the trial. Since the disputed property, records, and witnesses are located in Nagaland, and the trial was at its final stage, transfer would prejudice the respondents and administrative convenience. The Court refused transfer but ensured fair trial by directing protective measures for the petitioners. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Emphasis on reasonable apprehension supported by objective material, requirement that suits generally be tried where property is situated, balance between fairness and territorial jurisdiction. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The civil suit (No. 03/2007) concerns a dispute over family properties at Dimapur, Nagaland, with allegations of misappropriation by a relative. Petitioners alleged threats based on a 2006 newspaper report, but no police complaint or complaint to the trial court. The suit proceeded for years after the alleged incident without raising the intimidation issue before the trial court. Petitioners sought transfer from Dimapur, Nagaland, to Guwahati, Assam, citing threat and prejudice. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in the jurisdiction of Gauhati High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and subordinate courts outside Gauhati High Court jurisdiction |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that the transfer of civil suits between states is an exceptional measure requiring real, reasonable, and objectively substantiated apprehension of injustice, not just subjective fear.
- Explicitly holds that mere allegations of threat without contemporaneous complaints or supporting material are insufficient to justify transfer.
- Restores and applies Supreme Court guidance on the necessity to ordinarily try suits where the property is situated.
- Prescribes concrete protective and procedural safeguards (police protection, option for in camera or video conferencing evidence) to address litigant apprehensions without disrupting territorial jurisdiction.
- Directs speedy completion of trial, balancing both fair trial rights and avoidance of further delay.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court first noted the settled legal position from the Supreme Court: transfer of a suit from one state to another is an exceptional course, ordinarily permissible only when compelling reasons exist.
- The petitioners relied on the Supreme Court’s rulings in Gurucharan Das Chadha, Ranjit Thakur, and Kulwinder Kaur, which clarify that transfer can be ordered if there is a reasonable apprehension of not getting justice, assessed from the petitioner’s standpoint.
- The Court, however, stressed that this apprehension must be “real, reasonable and supported by objective circumstances,” not merely alleged or subjective.
- It was observed that, in this case, there was no police complaint or application for protection filed, and the suit had proceeded for years after the alleged threat. The timing and lack of contemporaneous action undermined the credibility of alleged apprehension.
- The facts also showed that all witnesses, records, and the suit property were in Nagaland, and the suit’s transfer would hinder administrative efficiency and cause prejudice to the other parties.
- Instead of transferring the case, the Court directed the trial judge to ensure a secure trial environment, allow for police protection on application, and the possibility of in camera or video conferencing hearings, and to expedite the trial.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Cited a 2006 news item and subsequent clarification allegedly naming and threatening them, claiming this created a reasonable apprehension for their safety and a fair trial.
- Asserted that past Supreme Court judgments require consideration of the litigant’s state of mind and that reasonableness must be assessed from their perspective.
- Argued that the continuing threat and intimidation prevented them from effectively prosecuting the civil suit in Dimapur.
Respondents
- Argued that there was no police complaint, FIR, or contemporaneous complaint regarding any threat; nor was such a plea ever raised before the trial court.
- Pointed out that the suit was filed in 2007, after the alleged threat in 2006, and that proceedings ran for years without any claim of intimidation.
- Emphasized that all witnesses, evidence, and records were located in Nagaland, including government land forming part of the dispute, making transfer administratively inconvenient and prejudicial.
- Contended that the trial was at its final stage and should not be delayed nor transferred on vague, unsubstantiated allegations.
Factual Background
The dispute relates to family properties situated in Dimapur, Nagaland. The petitioners claimed that a relative misappropriated rents and sale proceeds from these properties and denied them their share. They alleged being threatened as per a 2006 newspaper article and sought transfer of the civil suit (filed in 2007) from Dimapur, Nagaland, to Guwahati, Assam, citing threats and a lack of safety. However, there was no contemporaneous police complaint or protective application. The suit had progressed for years before the transfer application was made.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which governs the transfer of suits, was the central statutory provision interpreted.
- The Court noted, following Supreme Court interpretation, that Section 24 permits transfer primarily where compelling circumstances are demonstrated.
- It reaffirmed the principle that suits must ordinarily be tried in the jurisdiction where the subject property is situated.
- Section 25 was mentioned as relevant for transfer between different High Courts’ territorial jurisdictions, as clarified earlier by the Supreme Court.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded in this single-judge judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court directed that, upon application, the petitioners are to be provided police protection during hearings.
- The trial court was conferred the discretion to record evidence in camera or via video conferencing for witness safety.
- These measures were designed to safeguard litigants’ rights without disturbing territorial jurisdiction and to ensure a fair and intimidation-free trial.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment strictly affirms and applies settled Supreme Court precedent on the law governing transfer of suits between states.