JUDGMENT Hon’ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.—Heard Shri Prakash Padia, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri M.M. Sahai, learned counsel for the opposite party. 2. This application under Section 24 of Civil Procedure Code has been filed praying to set aside the order dated 21.1.2016 passed by the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar rejecting the Misc. Transfer Application No. 640/14 of 2015 and stay the further proceedings in Civil Revision No. 114 of 2015 for transferring the said civil revision to another Court. 3. Shri M.M. Sahai has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the application on the ground that an application under Section 24 of C.P.C. for setting aside the order passed by the District Court, is not maintainable. In support of his submission, he relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Sunita Devi v. Ram Kripal and another, 2015 (2) AWC 1543 : 2014(8) ADJ 33 (NOC) (paragraphs 8 and 10). 4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 5. The general power to transfer the case by the District Court or the High Court has been conferred under Section 24 of C.P.C., which is reproduced below: “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 desire 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to try or dispose of the same; or (iii) retransfer the same for trial or disposal to the Court from which it was withdrawn. (2) Where any suit or proceeding has been transferred or withdrawn under sub-section (1), the Court which is thereafter to try or dispose of such suit or proceeding may, subject to any special directions in the case of an order of transfer, either re-try it or proceed from the point at which it was transferred or withdrawn. (3) For the purpose 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.” 6. From perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is apparently clear that no power has been conferred on the High Court to set aside the order passed by the District Court on an application under Section 24 of C.P.C. 7. In the case of Dr. Ajay Chaturwedi v. Smt. Shobhana, 2014(11) ADJ 404 (DB), a Division Bench of this Court has considered the nature of power under Section 24 of C.P.C. and held that transfer of proceedings of suit, appeal etc. can be directed by the High Court/District Court on an application as also suo moto. This power of transfer is not an exercise of original jurisdiction, it is not an exercise of appellate jurisdiction nor it is an exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The power of transfer of suit and other proceedings is an exercise of power of superintendence. The legal position has also been explained by the Madras High Court in the case of P. Karuppiah Ambalam v. Ayya Nadar, 1963 SCC ONLINE Mad. 260; (1965) 78 LW 133 (Mad.). The power conferred under Section 24 of C.P.C. gives power to two superior Courts, viz., the High Court or the District Court to withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceedings pending in any Court subordinate to it and either try and dispose of the same, or transfer the same for trial or disposal to any Court, subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same. Section 24 confers a very wide power, and it is intended to enable the two superior Courts mentioned in it to exercise their general power of superintendent over subordinate Courts, or in the interest of justice. 8. In the case of Sunita Devi (supra), this Court considered the scope of Section 24 of C.P.C. and held as under: “8. The expression “the High Court or the District Court” clearly indicates that the power of the District Judge and that of the High Court under Section 24 of the C.P.C. Is mutually exclusive. The word “or” in the expression “the High Court or the District Court” in sub-section (1) is used disjunctively and not conjunctively which means that a person can move either the High Court or the District Court and not both the Courts in succession one after the other. Thus, from the aforesaid expression it is crystal clear that the application under Section 24 of the C.P.C. can either be moved before the District Judge or the High Court and cannot be moved simultaneously or one after the other. Thus, the remedy can be availed either by approaching the District Judge or directly to the High Court. Since the jurisdiction of the District Judge and the High Court is concurrent under Section 24 of the C.P.C., so if one party has approached the District Court, that party would be precluded from approaching the High Court under Section 24 of the C.P.C. The High Court under Section 24 of the C.P.C. cannot sit over the order of the District Judge as a revisional Court or as an appellate Court. 10. From the above provision of the Cr.P.C. it is clear that if any transfer application is rejected by the Sessions Judge the applicant can come to the High Court for getting the case transferred from one Court to the other in the same judgeship on the same ground but there is no such provision in the C.P.C. So, in the absence of such provision no party can approach the High Court after rejection of his application by the District Judge. In this reference, the ruling of the Hon’ble High Court rendered in Dadi Jagannadham v. Jammulu Ramula and others, (2001) 7 SCC 71 may be referred to. In this reference, the ruling of the Hon’ble High Court rendered in Dadi Jagannadham v. Jammulu Ramula and others, (2001) 7 SCC 71 may be referred to. In this ruling, it has been held that the Court could not add words to a statute or read words into it which are not there, especially when the literal reading produces an intelligible result. 11. So, in the absence of any specific provision in the C.P.C. a person cannot approach the High Court under Section 24 of the C.P.C. or any other provision of the C.P.C. to get his case transferred from one Court to another in the same judgeship after rejection of his transfer application by the District Judge on the same ground. But he is not remediless. He may approach the High Court for this purpose by means of filing the writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India,1950 and may invoke the High Court’s power of superintendence” 9. In view of the aforesaid, I find that transfer application filed by the applicant is not maintainable. Consequently, the transfer application deserves to be dismissed. 10. In result, the transfer application fails and is hereby dismissed. 11. Certified copy of the impugned order dated 21.1.2016 filed as Annexure 10 shall be returned to the learned counsel for the applicant within three days after retaining a photocopy thereof on record. ———————