JUDGMENT Hon’ble Umeshwar Pandey, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the applicant. 2. This transfer petition under Section 24 of C.P.C. has been filed seeking transfer of five pending matters detailed in paragraph-11 of the petition from the Court of Principal Judge Family Court to any other Court in the district. 3. There is a complaint against the Presiding Officer of the concerned Court in Annexure-3 to the petition, which has been made the entire basis for seeking the transfer. This complaint has been addressed to Hon’ble the Chief Justice spelling out extremely scandalous allegations against the Presiding Officer. The petitioner has not spared even the District Judge of concerned district against whom there is accusation that he has prejudice against her because he wanted to marry his daughter with petitioner’s husband earlier to the petitioner’s marriage. The comments of the concerned District Judge have been received in this context in which he has though, admitted that the proposal was once made but subsequently he himself did not find this proposal as appropriate for his daughter’s marriage. Obviously, this sort of allegation against the District Judge, who has absolutely no concern in the aforesaid pending matters himself, demonstrates to the extent of hardheadedness of the petitioner lady. In the accusations made against the Presiding Officer, she has also made some reference to certain conversations and talks, which the Presiding Officer allegedly had with the lady in his chamber. Those facts, as disclosed in the complaint, have been categorically denied by the Judge Family Court in his comments submitted before this Court. Otherwise also these charges, which have been levelled in the complaint, appear to be wholly frivolous and baseless. Nothing is there on record to indicate as to what has happened in the inquiry against the officer but on the face of it, these accusations being extremely scandalous appear to be wholly absurd and unacceptable. Certain other sundry factual incidents have been narrated in this complaint supporting to petitioner’s accusation regarding prejudice that the Court has allegedly acquired against her. It is on these grounds that the petitioner has submitted that she would not be getting justice at the hands of the Presiding Officer of the Court and is in-charge of those cases for its disposal. 4. It is on these grounds that the petitioner has submitted that she would not be getting justice at the hands of the Presiding Officer of the Court and is in-charge of those cases for its disposal. 4. As already referred to above, the entire accusations made against the Presiding Officer has been categorically denied and otherwise also, I do not feel such accusation made against a Judicial Officer of the seniority possessed by the Principal Judge Family Court, Gorakhpur, can ever be correct and acceptable. There is absolutely no strength in the grounds taken by the petitioner for transfer of those cases from that Court to any other Court. Accordingly, the petition being wholly misconceived is hereby dismissed. 5. Besides above, the allegations made against the Presiding Officer assassinating his character and conduct in relation to his approach towards petitioner’s cases pending before him, being wholly scandalous and frivolous, there is one big question, which may be noticed that after so much scandalisation of Officer’s character would it be justifiable to keep the cases in that Court over which he is Presiding? The answer would be in the negative. May be that the Presiding Officer, who has put in so much of service in the judicial wing deciding the cases, must have acquired enough will power to sustain his cool while finally deciding the matter and delivering the judgment. But it apparently does not appear just that the cases, which are before him, should any further remain there waiting for his decision. It would be always just and proper that the cases should be transferred to some other Court for decision, which may also appear to be fair and unprejudiced. The justice done in a particular matter between the parties ought to appear that the justice in actuality, has been done. Therefore, in pursuance to this if the cases are transferred from the Court-of present Principal Judge Family Court to any other Court, it would be more justifiable. In this context, submission was made from the side of the Counsel appearing for the opposite parties that there being only one designated Family Court in the district, the other Courts functioning there are not supposed to be competent Courts for disposal of those matters in the face of provisions of Section 8 of Family Courts Act. In this context, submission was made from the side of the Counsel appearing for the opposite parties that there being only one designated Family Court in the district, the other Courts functioning there are not supposed to be competent Courts for disposal of those matters in the face of provisions of Section 8 of Family Courts Act. The provision excludes the jurisdiction of other Courts in the district from exercising jurisdiction in respect of any suit or proceeding of the nature referred to in the explanation to Section 7(1) of the said Act. 6. While dealing with the aforesaid submissions, it would be pertinent that the provisions of Section 8 of the Family Courts Act as well as provisions of Section 24 of C.P.C. should be extracted below to facilitate the discussion on the point : "8. Exclusion of jurisdiction and pending proceedings : Where a Family Court has been established for any area,— (a) no district Court or any subordinate civil Court referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 7 shall, in relation to such area, have or exercise any jurisdiction in respect of any suit or proceeding of the nature referred to in the Explanation to that sub-section; (b) no Magistrate shall in relation to such area, have or exercise any jurisdiction or powers under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974); (c) every suit or proceeding of the nature referred to in the Explanation to sub-section (1) of Section 7 and every proceeding under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),— (i) which is pending immediately before the establishment of such Family Court before any district Court or subordinate Court referred to in that sub-section or, as the case may be, before any Magistrate under the said Code; and (ii) which would have been required to be instituted or taken before or by such Family Court if, before the date on which such suit or proceeding was instituted or taken, this Act had come into force and such Family Court had been established, shall stand transferred to such Family Court on the date on which it is established. 24. 24. General power of transfer and withdrawal.—(1) On the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and after hearing such of them as desired to be heard, or of its own motion, without such notice, the High Court or the District Court may, at any stage— (a) transfer any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending before it for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same; or (b) withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in any Court subordinate to it; and (i) try or dispose of the same; or (ii) transfer the same for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same; or (iii) re-transfer the same for trial or disposal to the Court from which It was withdrawn. (2) Where any suit or proceeding has been transferred or withdrawn under sub-section (1), the Court which [is thereafter to try or dispose of such suit or proceeding] may, subject to any special directions in the case of ah order of transfer, either retry it or proceed from the point at which it was transferred or withdrawn. [(3) For the purposes of this section— (a) Courts of Additional and Assistant Judges shall be deemed to be subordinate to the District Court; (b) “proceeding" includes a proceeding for the execution of a decree or order.] (4) The Court trying any suit transferred or withdrawn under this section from a Court of Small Causes shall, for the purposes of such suit, be deemed to be a Court of Small Causes. [(5) A suit or proceeding may be transferred under this section from a Court which has no jurisdiction to try it. 7. No doubt, Section 8 of the Family Courts Act says that where a Family Court has been established for an area, no district Court or any subordinate Court functioning in that area shall exercise any jurisdiction in respect of any suit or proceeding of the nature referred to in the Explanation of Section 7(1) of the said Act. There is definite exclusion of the jurisdiction of other Courts functioning in the district after a designated Family Court has been established there. There is definite exclusion of the jurisdiction of other Courts functioning in the district after a designated Family Court has been established there. It may therefore, sound justified that a matter pertaining to the jurisdiction of the Family Court pending there, cannot be transferred to any other Court in that district for its disposal. But in this context, the provision of sub-section (4) of Section 24, C.P.C. may be referred, which says that if a particular suit or proceeding is transferred to any regular Court after withdrawing the same from a Court of Small Causes, the Court trying that suit or proceeding shall for the purposes of such suit or proceeding would be deemed to be a Court of Small Cause. An identical provision to that of Section 8 of the Family Courts Act, is available in Section 16 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, which reads as below : "16. Exclusive jurisdiction of Courts of Small Causes.—Save as expressly provided by this Act or by any other enactment for the time being in force, a suit cognizable by a Court of Small Causes shall not be tried by any other Court having jurisdiction within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes by which the suit is triable." This provision also excludes the jurisdiction of other Courts in the district for trying suit cognizable by a Small Causes Court after a designated Court of Small Causes is established there. In-spite of this exclusion of jurisdiction of the other Courts the aforesaid sub-section (4) of Section 24, C.P.C. says that after withdrawal of the suit of Small Cause nature from the Court of Judge Small Causes, if transferred under this Section to any other Court, the transferee Court for the purposes of such suit shall be deemed to be a Court of Small Causes; meaning thereby that-on passing of an order of transfer under Section 24, C.P.C. the case when reaches to a Court not having jurisdiction on account of exclusion of the jurisdiction by Section 16 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, it acquires such jurisdiction by virtue of transfer itself. Section 24 of C.P.C. confers general power of transfer of cases upon this Court. There are definite provisions in the Code regarding territorial jurisdiction of a Court where the suit may legally be instituted. Section 24 of C.P.C. confers general power of transfer of cases upon this Court. There are definite provisions in the Code regarding territorial jurisdiction of a Court where the suit may legally be instituted. These provisions are contained from Sections 15 to 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Obviously, every Court functioning in the State or in the district does not have power to take cognizance of a particular case the cause of action of which does not fall in the extent of its territorial jurisdiction but by virtue of this general power of transfer, this Court has jurisdiction to withdraw the case and transfer it for disposal to any subordinate Court competent to try or dispose of the same in any other district of the State. Any way, the aforesaid Sections 15 to 20 of C.P.C. virtually exclude the jurisdiction of other Courts in whose territorial jurisdiction the cause of action for the suit has not arisen, still this Court, if transfers a particular case to any other Court in the State, it acquires territorial jurisdiction to try and dispose of the said case. The territorial jurisdiction stands virtually conferred upon that Court by the order of transfer passed under Section 24, C.P.C. It is therefore, clear that in case this Court or the Court of District Judge makes an order of transfer under Section 24, C.P.C. the transferee Court acquires jurisdiction for the trial of that case notwithstanding the exclusion of jurisdiction by any other provision of an statute. In the same manner, if this Court under Section 24, C.P.C. makes a order of the transfer of a particular case pending in a Court, which possesses territorial jurisdiction for its trial to a Court functioning in another district, in that-event also the transferee Court acquires territorial jurisdiction for the trial or hearing of the transferred case. Therefore, if the cases referred to in paragraph-11 of the petition are withdrawn from the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court and transferred to a Court of other Additional District Judge whose jurisdiction for its trial is excluded by Section 8 of Family Courts Act, the transferee Court would be deemed as a competent Court for its trial notwithstanding the provision of Section 8 of the Family Courts Act. Therefore, the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the opposite parties that the case could not be transferred to any other Court within the district of Gorakhpur, does not appear to have much relevance simply because of the provisions contained in Section 8 of Family Court Act. 8. In the aforesaid view of the matter, those cases may be transferred from the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court to any other Court. All the five pending matters namely (i) Suit No. 15 of 2006 under Guardianship and Wards Act (ii) Suit No. 91 of 2005 for divorce (iii) Suit No. 697 of 2005 for Injunction restraining applicants not to damage the house situated at Batiya Hata in which admittedly applicant lives (iv) Suit No. 9 of 2006 by applicant as Indigent of injunction restraining respondent not to eject applicant from the house (v) Suit No. 180 of 2005-for maintenance, are hereby transferred from the Court of Principal Judge Family Court to the Court of first Additional District Judge, who shall start taking all these cases on priority basis and will decide one by one by holding day to day hearing/proceeding in the matter. The suit pertaining to the grant of relief for decree of divorce shall be taken up first for hearing and decision and thereafter other matters shall be disposed of by regular hearing one by one. Unnecessary indulgence of the Court for adjournment on the request of either of the parties shall be discouraged with hard hands. ———