JUDGMENT : 1. The applicant-wife-Simaben Manjibhai Rupani is before this Court praying that:- “14. (A) Your lordships may be pleased (to transfer) the proceedings of Darkhast Application being Civil Darkhast No.9 of 2013 filed in Family Suit (HMP) No.759 of 2008 which is pending before the Family Court, Surat, be pleased (to) transfer to the Family Court at Bhavnagar.” 2. The facts of the case are set out in paras-3,4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the application. The same read as under:- “4. Petitioner most respectfully states that thereafter petitioner filed Criminal Complaint No.1812 of 2010 on dated 03.03.2010, before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Bhavnagar u/s 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act and u/s. 406, 420, 114 and 498(A) of IPC. It is submitted that said complaint is pending and it kept for cross- examination of the petitioner. A copy of the complaint dated 03.03.2010, being Criminal Complaint no.1812 of 2010, before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Bhavnagar is produced herewith and marked as “Annexure B” to this petition. 5. Petitioner most respectfully states that thereafter petitioner preferred application u/s 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code for maintenance, being Criminal Misc.Application No.781 of 2010 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Bhavnagar. It is submitted that thereafter family court was available at Bhavnagar District and said Criminal Misc.Application No.781 of 2010 was transferred to the family court and case is renumbered and converted in Criminal Misc. Application No.107 of 2013. It is submitted that considering the application of the petitioner, Ld. Principal Judge, Family Court Bhavnagar partly allowed the application of the petitioner and directed to the respondent to pay Rs.1000/-for maintenance. A copy of the order dated 31.12.2013 passed by the Ld. Principal Judge; Family Court Bhavnagar in Criminal Case No.107 of 2013 is produced herewith and marked as “Annexure C” to this petition. 6. Petitioner most respectfully states that petitioner, meanwhile also preferred HMP No.120 of 2010, before the Senior Civil Judge, Bhavnagar for divorce u/s 13 of Hindu Marriage act-1955 on dated 2010. It is submitted that thereafter family court was available at Bhavnagar District and said HMP No.120 of 2010 was transferred to the Family Court, Bhavnagar and case renumbered and converted in HMP No.77 of 2013. It is submitted that thereafter family court was available at Bhavnagar District and said HMP No.120 of 2010 was transferred to the Family Court, Bhavnagar and case renumbered and converted in HMP No.77 of 2013. A copy of the application divorce u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act-1955 being HMP No.77 of 2013 is produced herewith and marked as “Annexure D” to this petition. It is submitted that in both the cases which are pending before the Bhavnagar Court and respectfully is appeared through his advocate. 7. Petitioner most respectfully states that respondent preferred petition u/s 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for Restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court at Surat being Family Suit (HMP) No.759 of 2008. It is stated that petitioner filed here reply but not came forward to give her deposition, ultimately Family Suit (HMP) No.759 of 2008 was allowed on dated 12.05.2011 and directed to the petitioner to fulfill her matrimonial obligations and perform conjugal rights. A copy of the order dated 12.05.2011, passed by the Ld. Principal Judge, Family Court, Surat in Family Suit (HMP) No.759 of 2008 is produced herewith and marked as “Annexure E” to this petition. 8. Petitioner most respectfully states that being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Ld. Principal Judge, Family Court, Surat, petitioner preferred First Appeal being First Appeal (Stamp number) No.2144 of 2011, before this Hon'ble High Court. It is stated that as office objections were not removed within two weeks First Appeal was stood automatically dismissed on 12.09.2011. It is stated that thereafter, advocate for the petitioner preferred restoration application with condonation application which was allowed by order dated 17.07.2012 (Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice Jayant Patel and Honourable Mr. Justice C.L.Soni) and further granted two weeks time for removal of office objections. It is stated that as office objections were not removed within two weeks, again First Appeal was dismissed for non removal of office objections. It is stated that thereafter petitioner changed the advocate and taken back the papers of the First Appeal and now petitioner engaged present advocate and filed restoration application with delay condonation application which is pending.” 3. After the Family Court, Surat, passed an order, the respondent-husband preferred petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. After the Family Court, Surat, passed an order, the respondent-husband preferred petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. It it these proceedings which are under consideration of this Court for being transferred to Bhavnagar from Family Court, Surat. 4. The Court after hearing learned Advocate Mr.Acharya for the applicant, issued notice on 24.02.2014 returnable on 09.04.2014. In response to service of notice, learned Advocate Mr.Samir Afzal Khan appeared for the respondent-husband. 5. Learned Advocate for the respondent-husband filed affidavit opposing this MCA for transfer and the Court considering contents thereof, particularly paras-5 to 8, which are incorporated in order dated 30.06.2014, adjourned the matter to enable learned Advocate for the respondent to work-up the point and argue the same. 5.1 Today learned Advocate for the respondent submitted additional points and submissions in support of the affidavit in reply. 5.2 Learned Advocate for the respondent relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble the Apex Court in the matter of The State of Bihar Vs. Ram Naresh Pandey, reported in AIR 1957 SCA 389. Besides, learned Advocate for the respondent also relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble the Apex Court in the matter of Asgarali Nazarali Singaporewalla Vs. State of Bombay, reported in AIR 1957 SCA 503. Learned Advocate for the respondent next relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble the Apex Court in the matter of Vidhyabai Vs. Padmalatha, reported in 2009 (2) SCC 409 , wherein the Hon'ble the Apex Court has considered earlier decisions in paras-12, 13 and 14. Learned Advocate for the respondent next relied upon a decision of the Delhi High Court in the matter of Dr.Kavita Chaudhri Vs. Ms.Eveneet Singh, reported in 2012(3) KLT SN 1 (C.No.1) : (2012) DMC 1. 5.3 Learned Advocate for the respondent made submissions with all vehemence to convince this Court on the point that Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be invoked by the applicant. In this regard, learned Advocate for the respondent submitted that execution proceedings cannot be considered to be pending for trial and therefore, the Court will have no jurisdiction to pass any order on an application which is filed under Section 24. In this regard, learned Advocate for the respondent submitted that execution proceedings cannot be considered to be pending for trial and therefore, the Court will have no jurisdiction to pass any order on an application which is filed under Section 24. 5.4 Learned Advocate for the respondent submitted that it is only when any suit, appeal or other proceeding is pending before the Court, “for trial” then only an application under Section 24 can be entertained. 6. The Court has carefully examined the citations and relevant part thereof cited by the learned Advocate for the respondent and is not able to agree with the submissions made by the learned Advocate for the respondent. This Court is of the opinion that “other proceedings” definitely includes execution proceedings. The Court does not agree that it is only for the purpose of trial when such proceeding is pending that Section 24 can be resorted to because next to the word, “for trial” is “or disposal” and therefore, submissions made by the learned Advocate for the respondent find no favour with this Court. It is a trite law that when any provision of law is required to be interpreted by the Court, the attempt on the part of the Court should be to give a meaningful interpretation to that provision. In number of decisions, the Hon'ble the Apex Court has held that technicalities should not over-power the substantial justice. In the present case, if this application is not entertained and if the proceedings pending before the Family Court, Surat, are not transferred to Family Court, Bhavnagar, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant will suffer and therefore, to see that substantial justice is done between the parties, the present application is required to be allowed. 7. The application is accordingly allowed. The proceedings of Darkhast Application being Civil Darkhast No.9 of 2013 filed in Family Suit (HMP) No.759 of 2008 which is pending before the Family Court, Surat, is ordered to be transferred to the Family Court at Bhavnagar. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs. Direct service is permitted.