The High Court of Madhya Pradesh has allowed a transfer petition, directing the Principal District Judge, Sidhi, to transfer a 13-year-old civil suit to another court. The decision came after the presiding Third Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sidhi, expressed inability to decide the matter within the six-week timeframe previously stipulated by the High Court due to a heavy workload.
The High Court was hearing a Miscellaneous Petition filed by Rajrakhan Singh and others challenging the order dated December 18, 2025, passed by the Principal District Judge, Sidhi. The District Judge had rejected an application under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) seeking the transfer of the case. Justice Vivek Jain, observing the delay and the Trial Court’s refusal to adhere to the time limit, set aside the District Judge’s order and directed that the suit be transferred to a court with sufficient judicial time to hear the final arguments.
Background of the Case
The civil suit in question has been pending since January 2013. According to the record, the matter was first fixed for final arguments on November 23, 2023. Since then, the case has been continuously adjourned for various reasons, including the paucity of time with the court.
Aggrieved by the delay, the petitioners had previously approached the High Court via a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution (MP No. 6442 of 2025). On November 21, 2025, the High Court disposed of that petition with a specific direction to the Trial Court to hear the final arguments and decide the suit within six weeks.
Arguments and Trial Court’s Stance
When the High Court’s order dated November 21, 2025, was placed before the Trial Court on November 25, 2025, the presiding officer recorded that it was “impossible” to decide the suit within six weeks. The Trial Court cited its heavy workload, noting that the Presiding Officer is also the in-charge Chief Judicial Magistrate and holds charge of the Juvenile Justice Board. Consequently, the Trial Court fixed the next date for final arguments on January 8, 2026, a date beyond the six-week limit mandated by the High Court.
Following this, the petitioners filed an application under Section 24 of the CPC before the Principal District Judge, Sidhi, seeking a transfer of the case on the ground that the Civil Court was disinclined to decide the suit within the stipulated time. The Principal District Judge rejected this application on December 18, 2025, accepting the Trial Court’s reasoning regarding the volume of work.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Vivek Jain took a stern view of the Trial Court’s approach. The High Court noted that only the hearing of final arguments and the passing of the judgment remained in the suit.
The Court observed:
“The Court made no attempt to take up the matter and fixed the date beyond six weeks, that may or may not be a show of oneupmanship or the learned Trial Judge taking offence with the order of the High Court. Such instances give an impression in the mind of the litigant as a sad sign of disintegration of judicial discipline and hierarchy when the Civil Judge refuses to even list the case within the time limit fixed by the High Court.”
The Court further remarked that even on January 8, 2026, the case was adjourned to February 3, 2026. Justice Jain stated that looking at the attitude of the Presiding Officer, it appeared they were in “no position to decide the suit.”
The High Court held that the Principal District Judge should have assigned the matter to another judge who had judicial time available, rather than agreeing with the reasoning that deciding the case within the fixed time was not possible.
Decision
The High Court allowed the petition and set aside the order of the Principal District Judge dated December 18, 2025.
The Court directed:
“The Principal District Judge, Sidhi is requested to transfer the suit to a Court of same jurisdiction having judicial time spare with him to decide 13 years old suits in which only final arguments are to be heard and then judgement is to be passed.”
Additionally, the Court directed that a copy of the order be sent to the District Judge (Inspection) and placed before the Portfolio Judge having charge of Sidhi for information.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Rajrakhan Singh and Others vs. Rajkaran Singh (Since Deceased) Through LRs Jai Singh and Others
- Case Number: Misc. Petition No. 51 of 2026
- Judge: Justice Vivek Jain
