A routine-sounding transfer dispute turned into a sharp lesson on appellate limits at the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, where a Division Bench shut the door on a special appeal filed by a litigant appearing in person. The case, argued patiently and at some length, ultimately hinged not on personal grievances but on a strict reading of procedural law and long-settled precedent.
Background
The matter arose from Special Appeal Defective No. 387 of 2025, filed by Vinay Mohan against an order passed earlier by a Single Judge on a transfer application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). That order had been made back in May 2025 in a civil transfer plea between Mohan and respondent Smt. Nidhi Singh.
Read also:- Redefining Aravallis: Supreme Court Steps In, But Will Monday’s Hearing Freeze Mining Across the Region?
When the appeal came up before Justices Rajan Roy and Prashant Kumar, the appellant, arguing in person, attempted to take the Bench into the merits of the dispute. But the judges paused him almost immediately. Before merits, they said, the court had to decide a threshold issue - is such an appeal even maintainable?
Court’s Observations
The Bench walked through the law carefully, almost like a classroom explanation. At the heart of the issue was Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, which allows special appeals only against certain kinds of “judgments.”
Read also:- J&K High Court Pulls Up Magistrate for Issuing Warrants After Cheque Bounce Settlement
“The question,” the Bench noted, “is whether an order passed under Section 24 CPC can be treated as a judgment at all.”
Answering this, the judges leaned on a line of earlier rulings, including Amit Khanna v. Suchi Khanna, where it had already been settled that a transfer order does not decide the rights of parties. It merely shifts the place of trial. As the court put it, such an order “does not affect the merits of the controversy nor does it terminate the proceedings.”
Quoting earlier Supreme Court guidance, the Bench observed that transfer orders are, at best, administrative or facilitative. They may inconvenience one side, yes, but they are not final decisions. “Such an order,” the court said in effect, “cannot be elevated to the status of a judgment.”
There was another, more technical barrier too. The judges pointed out that the CPC itself does not provide for an appeal against Section 24 transfer orders. In fact, Section 105 CPC bars appeals from orders unless the statute clearly allows them. “The right to appeal,” the Bench reminded, “is not inherent. It must be given by law.”
The appellant cited decisions from the Supreme Court and other High Courts to argue otherwise. But the Bench distinguished each of them, noting that some arose under special statutes or involved orders passed without jurisdiction - situations very different from the present case.
Read also:- Madras High Court Defers Plea to Halt ‘Parasakthi’ Release, Seeks Report From Writers’ Body
Decision
After considering both law and precedent, the Division Bench reached a firm conclusion. Since a transfer order under Section 24 CPC is neither a “judgment” nor appealable under the CPC, the special appeal could not proceed.
Accordingly, the court dismissed Vinay Mohan’s special appeal as not maintainable, bringing the matter to a close without entering into the merits of the underlying dispute.
Case Title: Vinay Mohan vs. Smt. Nidhi Singh and Another
Case No.: Special Appeal Defective No. 387 of 2025
Case Type: Special Appeal (Civil) – Maintainability of appeal against transfer order
Decision Date: 11 December 2025
