Saroj Dilip Gandhi v. Nilesh Subhash Chopda - S.24 CPC - Transfer Of Suit- De Novo Trial

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 24- Order VII Rule 10 - There is a fine distinction between an order of return of plaint under Order VII Rule 10 and transfer of suit under Section 24 . The transfer of suit under Section 24 may be on any ground - When the suit is transferred under Section 24 of the CPC, the plaintiff cannot insist for a de-novo trial. Had it been the case of return of plaint under Order VII Rule 10, then, definitely the Court has to start de-novo. (Para 2-4)

Case Info

Here’s the information extracted from the document you shared:


Basic Case Details


Case name: Saroj Dilip Gandhi v. Nilesh Subhash Chopda & Ors.Court: Supreme Court of IndiaCase type/number: Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 15253 of 2026Judgment/order date: 04-05-2026Neutral citation: Not mentioned in the extracted text.


Coram


The order is by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court:

  • Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala
  • Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vijay Bishnoi

Caselaws and Citations Referred


The order cites one Supreme Court decision:

  • EXL Careers and Anr. v. Frankfinn Aviation Services Private Limited, (2020) 12 SCC 667.

Statutes / Laws Referred


The order specifically refers to provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC):

  • Section 24 CPC – Transfer of suits, appeals, or other proceedings.
  • Order VII Rule 10 CPC – Return of plaint.

Brief Summary (Three Sentences)


The Supreme Court considered whether, after a suit is transferred under Section 24 CPC, the plaintiff can insist on a de novo trial in the transferee court. It drew a distinction between a transfer under Section 24 CPC and a return of plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, noting that a de novo trial is mandated only in the latter case, as clarified in EXL Careers v. Frankfinn Aviation Services (2020) 12 SCC 667. Holding that the present case involved a transfer under Section 24 CPC, the Court upheld the High Court’s view, found no ground to interfere, dismissed the Special Leave Petition, and disposed of all pending applications.