M/s. Alfavision Overseas India Ltd. vs Mohanlal Nagda.

All the aforesaid M.C.Cs. are disposed of by this common order as the controversy involved in the matter is same. For the sake of

convenience, facts of the case as mentioned in M.C.C. No.553/2017 are taken.

The applicant (hereinafter referred to as ''defendant'') has filed the present M.C.C. u/s. 24 of the C.P.C. for transfer of the suit filed by

respondent from the Court of Additional District Judge, Neemuch to any other Court in Madhya Pradesh preferably the Court at District

Dhar/Ujjain/Dewas or Indore.

The respondents (hereinafter referred to as ''plaintiff'') in aforesaid M.C.C. has filed the suits for recovery of certain amount. According to the

plaintiff, he is resident of Village Rewali-Dewali, Tehsil and District Neemuch and engaged in the business of agriculture and contractorship. The

defendant is doing business in the name of Alfavision Overseas India Ltd. As per pleading in the plaint, in the month of September, 2007, the

defendant was in need of money for his business and wanted to purchase some properties, therefore, he demanded some loan from him and

agreed to repay along with interest. Accordingly, the plaintiff lent amount of Rs.5,00,000/- in cash in presence of Udailal Anjana.

The plaintiffs have filed as many as 8 different suits against the defendant for recovery of the loan amount with interest on the basis of same facts

and circumstances. Out of 8 suits, four are pending at Neemuch; two are pending at Pratapgarh (Rajasthan); and two are at Nimbaheda

(Rajasthan).

The defendant has filed written statement in all the suits refuting the allegations made in the plaint and pleaded that the suit has been filed with

dishonest intention to harass and for extortion of unlawful money from him. He has further stated that Shri Udailal Anjana and his brother

Manoharlal Anjana being the partners of Anjana Constructions have also filed the civil suit for recovery of Rs.34,00,000/- which is pending in the

Court of Additional District Judge, Neemuch. By order dated 16.5.2017, the learned trial Court has directed both the parties to remain present

before the Court for exploring the possibility of settlement in the suit and if the settlement does not arrived at, then the case would be fixed for

recording of evidence of defendant''s witness Vishnu Goyal. On 16.5.2017, at about 3.30 pm., Vishnu Goyal was waiting outside the Court room.

Plaintiff''s partner Udailal Anjana came there along with his counsel and his servant and started abusing Vishnu Goyal with filthy language. This

incident was immediately brought to the notice of the learned trial Judge who recorded the same in the court-proceedings. The said proceedings

have not been filed with this M.C.C. Thereafter, Vishnu Goyal also approached to the Police Station and made a complaint. The copy of such

complaint/report has also not been filed along with this M.C.C. On the basis of the said incident, defendant has filed present M.C.C. for transfer of

the suits from the Court at Neemuch as he is having threat of his life and he is frightening to appear in the Court at Neemuch.

Learned counsel for the applicant/defendant submitted that it is a fit case where this Court must transfer the case to any other District by

exercising power u/s. 24 of the C.P.C. because place at Neemuch Court is not safe for the defendant and his witnesses. In support, he placed

reliance on the decision in Abdul Karim V/s. Mohd. Ismail : 1988 (1) MPWN 60.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that the defendant has taken number of dates for his evidence and he is

interested only in delaying the tial. The evidence of the plaintiff has been concluded long back. If the witnesses of the defendant are having any fear,

then the protection can be granted to them, subject to filing proper application is moved before the Court or to Police. In support of his

contentions, he has placed reliance on the decisions in Kulwinder Kaur V/s. Gurcharan Singh : AIR 2008 SC 1333; Ratanlal V/s. Suresh Kumar :

AIR 1987 (MP) 178; and R. Sivasuubramaniyan V/s. R. Periasamy : AIR 2017 (NOC 1048 (MAD.).

In all the M.C.Cs. filed u/s. 24 of the C.P.C., the defenant has only pleaded about the incident dated 16.5.2017, but he has not filed any

document to support his contention. According to him, said incident has been recorded by the trial Court in the order-sheet, but the certified copy

of the said order-sheet has not been filed. He further submitted that he made a complaint to the police, even the copy of the said complaint has not

been filed, therefore, in absence of any material before this Court, this Court cannot exercise powers u/s. 24 of the C.P.C. to transfer all the money

suits to the Court who has no territorial jurisdiction over the subject matter of suit. In case of Abdul Karim (supra), this Court allowed the

application u/s. 24 of C.P.C. as there was a dispute between the husband and wife and there was physical ill-treatment and assault to the family

members of the parties. There was enough material before the Court to pass an order of transfer of the case, but in the present case, no such

material have been filed.

In case of Kulwinder Kaur (supra), the apex Court has held that discretionary power to transfer the case from one Court to another has to be

exercised with due care, caution and circumspection. There has to be a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the litigant that he might not get

justice in the Court in which the suit is pending. Para 13 and 14 of the said judgment are reproduced as under :-

Having considered rival contentions of the parties and having gone through the proceedings of the case, we are of the view that the impugned

order deserves to be set aside. So far as the power of transfer is concerned, S. 24 of the Code empowers a High Court or a District Court to

transfer inter alia any suit, appeal or other proceedings pending before it or in any Court subordinate to it to any other Court for trial and disposal.

The said provision confers comprehensive power on the Court to transfer suits, appeals or other proceedings at any stage either on an application

by any party or suo motu.

Although the discretionary power of transfer of cases cannot be imprisoned within a strait-jacket of any cast-iron formula unanimously

applicable to all situations, it cannot be gainsaid that the power to transfer a case must be exercised with due care, caution and circumspection.

Reading Ss. 24 and 25 of the Code together and keeping in view various judicial pronouncements, certain broad propositions as to what may

constitute a ground for transfer have been laid down by Courts. They are balance of convenience or inconvenience to plaintiff or defendant or

witnesses; convenience of inconvenience of a particular place of trial having regard to the nature of evidence on the points involved in the suit;

issues raised by the parties; reasonable apprehension in the mind of the litigant that he might not get justice in the Court in which the suit is pending;

important questions of law involved or a considerable section of public interested in the litigation; ''interest of justice'' demanding for transfer of suit,

appeal or other proceeding, etc. Above are some of the instances which are germane in considering the question of transfer of a suit, appeal or

other proceeding. They are, however, illustrative in nature and by no means be treated as exhaustive. If on the above or other relevant

considerations, the Court feels that the plaintiff or the defendant is not likely to have a ''fair trial''in the Court from which he seeks to transfer a case,

it is not only the power, but the duty of the Court to make such order.

In case of Ratanlal (supra), this Court has held that the mere fact that the party has suspicion would not constitute a valid ground for transfer. In

the present case, there is no allegation against the Presiding Officer. If the defendant or his witnesses want any protection, they may apply to the

concerned Court or the Police Station for providing necessary protection during his evidence, therefore, only on this ground, proceedings of the

suits cannot be transferred to another District.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, in the considered opinion of this Court, no case for transfer of the cases is made out. Accordingly, these

M.C.Cs. stand dismissed. No order as to costs. Let a copy of this order be retained in the connected cases.