JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS is an application under Sections 22 and 23 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, whereby petitioner Ku. Satya Tiwari r/o Bombay sought the transfer of Misc. Judicial Case No. 2 of 1976 (succession), pending since 22-12-1976 before the Third Additional District Judge, Gwalior, to any Court of competent jurisdiction at Bombay. Misc. Judicial Case No. 2 of 1976 is an application for issue of a succession certificate under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, made by non-applicants Nos. 1 to 3 daughters of late deceased Shambhoo Nath Tiwari. ( 2. ) IT was not disputed before me that late Shambhoo Nath Tiwari died at Gwalior on 26-10-1976 within the jurisdiction of District Judge, Gwalior. That he had also part of his immovable property situate at Gwalior, though the cash and securities etc. in respect of which the succession certificate was sought, stood deposited at Bombay, Gwalior and other places. ( 3. ) THE other facts, relevant for the disposal of this petition, briefly stated, are, as follows :-The application for transfer has, as yet, not been admitted for hearing. Under the order sheet dated 29-7-1981, notices were directed to be issued to the non-applicants to show cause against the admission of the petition for hearing. It is unfortunate that the proceedings for the issue of succession certificate, which are expected to be disposed of summarily and expeditiously, have been kept pending in the lower Court on account of the present transfer application and the record having been requisitioned by this Court. ( 4. ) IN course of the present proceedings for transfer of the case, a preliminary objection was filed on behalf of the non-applicants on 24-10-1983. Thereafter, reply of non-applicants Nos. 1 to 3 to the main petition was filed on 13-10-1983. This case was put up before me for the first time on 11-9-1986 and the present Order is being passed today, titer hearing the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for non-applicants nos. 1 to 3 took me through the provisions of Sections 22 and 23 of the Civil Procedure code, his objections to the tenability of the transfer application being based on the non-compliance of the requirements thereof. The learned counsel for non-applicants nos. 1 to 3 took me through the provisions of Sections 22 and 23 of the Civil Procedure code, his objections to the tenability of the transfer application being based on the non-compliance of the requirements thereof. While in course of the arguments, he pointed to the essential requirements of Section 22 of Civil Procedure Code, which lays down as below :- "22. Power to transfer suits which may be instituted in more than one Court. Where a suit may be instituted in any one of two or more Courts and is instituted in one of such Courts, any defendant, after notice to the other parties, may, at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled at or before such settlement, apply to have the suit transferred to another Court, and the Court to which such application is made, after considering the objections of the other parties (if any), shall determine in which of the several Courts having jurisdiction the suit shall proceed. " The essential requirement of Section 22 of the Code, reproduced above, to the effect that before making application for transfer, notice should be issued to the other party has not been complied with. In this connection, learned counsel for non-applicants Nos. 1 to 3 relied on the case of Vijayaram Raj Maharaja of Vizianagram vs. Dr. Vijaya anand Gajpati Raj Bahadur and others ( AIR 1953 All. 750 ) which is applicable on all fours. The following observations made by the Supreme Court in that case may be cited with advantage :- "3. It will thus appear that a condition precedent to the maintainability of an application under Section 22 Civil Procedure Code is that a notice should be given by the applicant to the "other parties. " The applicant had, before moving this application, served a notice on the plaintiff but has not to this day served notice on the other two persons, Viz. Rani Vidyavati Devi and rajkumar Vishweshwar, who are arrayed as opposite parties 2 and 3. respectively in this Court and who were co-defendants with the applicant in the Court below. The phrase "other parties" does not mean persons arrayed as opposite parties qua the applicant. It means all other persons impleaded as parties to the suit. Rani Vidyavati Devi and rajkumar Vishweshwar, who are arrayed as opposite parties 2 and 3. respectively in this Court and who were co-defendants with the applicant in the Court below. The phrase "other parties" does not mean persons arrayed as opposite parties qua the applicant. It means all other persons impleaded as parties to the suit. Every one who is impleaded in the suit, whether as a plaintiff or as a defendant, is interested in the venue of the trial. If the case is to go to a different district or a different State, he may be vitally affected and his interest may suffer. It is, therefore, the intention of law that nobody should be permitted to move an application under Section 22, Civil Procedure Code unless previous notice of such intention is given to all other parties to the suit. 4. Since this preliminary requirement has not been complied with by the applicant, this application cannot be entertained It is hereby rejected. Opposite party I shall get his costs from the applicant. " ( 5. ) FOR the same reasons, the present application for transfer is not maintainable. It is, accordingly, dismissed on the preliminary objection raised by non-applicants Nos. i to 3. The record of the lower Court shall be sent back forthwith, with a copy of this order to the Court below, with a direction that it shall be disposed of expeditiously within a period of four months as far as possible. The costs, incurred by non-applicants Nos. 1 to 3 in the present case, shall be borne by the applicant Counsels fee for both the parties Rs. 500/- if certified: ( 6. ) THE parties are directed to appear before the tower Court for further proceedings on 8-10-1986. A copy of this Order along with the record shall be sent back forthwith by the Additional Registrar to the lower Court and acknowledgment of receipt shall be obtained from the Reader of the lower Court concerned. Order accordingly.