JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—Heard Sri V.B.Singh Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant. 2. The petitioner-applicant has filed this application under Section 24 C.P.C. for transfer of Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2015, Smt. Ram Beti and others v. Amit Pachauri and others, pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Etah to some other Court of competent jurisdiction within the district itself. 3. The office has reported that the transfer application is not maintainable in view of Jagdish Kumar v. District Judge, Badaun and others, 1998(1) ARC 305 . 4. The aforesaid objection has been raised probably for the reason that the petitioner-applicant had earlier filed an application under Section 24 C.P.C. before the District Judge, Etah and the same was rejected. 5. Section 24 C.P.C. lays down the general power of transfer and withdrawal of the cases and inter alia provides that the High Court or the District Judge may at any stage transfer any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending before any Court subordinate to it for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same. 6. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision reveals that it confers concurrent power of transfer of cases upon the High Court and the District Judge. 7. The above decision in Jagdish Kumar (supra) lays down that an order passed under Section 24 C.P.C. is neither appealable or revisable. It may, however, be subjected to test, if necessary, under the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The jurisdiction conferred under Section 24 C.P.C. is concurrent. The aforesaid jurisdiction cannot be interpreted to mean that the jurisdiction of one Court is to the exclusion of the other. If the application under Section 24 C.P.C. fails before the District Judge the party may approach the High Court in exercise of concurrent jurisdiction under the same provision and once the High Court passes an order, the order of the District Judge would stand overruled by implication but this will not be the situation where the party is unsuccessful before the High Court to enable him to go before the District Judge. 8. 8. The legal conclusions of Jagdish Kumar (supra) in short are as under: (1) The High Court and the District Judge has concurrent jurisdiction to transfer cases under Section 24 C.P.C.; (2) The aforesaid jurisdiction conferred upon the two Courts is not to the exclusion of the other: (3) If the application under Section 24 C.P.C. fails before the District Judge, the party has an option to move to the High Court under Section 24 C.P.C. itself but if the party is unsuccessful in the High Court it cannot move a fresh application before the District Judge; and (4) The order passed under Section 24 C.P.C. is neither appealable nor revisable. It may be subjected to test, if necessary, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. The aforesaid decision nowhere lays down that once a party has approached the District Judge under Section 24 C.P.C. it cannot file a fresh application before the High Court, rather it specifically lays down that the jurisdiction conferrned under Section 24 C.P.C. is concurrent and that a party filing an application under Section 24 before the District Judge may approach the High Court under the same provision. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there is no bar in moving an application under Section 24 C.P.C. before the High Court for transfer of a case by the same party after lossing in getting it transferred by the District Judge. 11. The petitioner-applicant is not challenging the order of the District Judge rejecting application under Section 24 C.P.C. 12. Accordingly, the objection raised by the office in this regard stands overruled and the transfer application is held to be maintainable notwithstanding that a similar transfer application had been dismissed by the District Judge. 13. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant on merits of the matter. 14. The petitioner-applicant wants transfer of appeal only for the reason that it had remained pending for long before the appellate Court with no progress. It appears that the appeal could not be heard on merit as all the parties were not duly represented. The parties are now represented and the matter can be heard. Therefore, there is no justification for transferring the appeal to another Court. 15. It appears that the appeal could not be heard on merit as all the parties were not duly represented. The parties are now represented and the matter can be heard. Therefore, there is no justification for transferring the appeal to another Court. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant submits that since he had applied for transfer of the proceedings, the Presiding Officer of the Court concerned would adopt a partisan approach and act prejudicially against him. 16. The submission has no substance as in the course of litigation such situations do arise but the judicial officers always rise to the occasion and decide the matter on merits in accordance with law notwithstanding the filing of application for transfer of the case from their Court. Moreover, the petitioner-applicant has not levelled any allegation against the Presiding Officer for getting the case transferred. Therefore, there is no question of any of partisan approach by the Court concerned. 17. The transfer application, as such, is devoid of merit and is dismissed. 18. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Stamp Reporting Section for future guidance in submitting reports on transfer applications filed under Section 24 C.P.C. ———————