Sanjay Kumar Gangania vs Rita Sharma

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.—The petitioner has preferred this petition u/s 24 of the CPC read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for transferring the case (HMA) No. 52/2013 from the Court of Addl. District Judge (1) Mandi, Camp at Sundernagar to the Court of learned District Judge Mandi.

The ground for transfer as set out in the petition is that since a petition u/s 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act is pending at Mandi for adjudication before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class at Mandi, therefore, this petition also be transferred there in order to facilitate both the parties. It is further alleged that the petitioner feels humiliated at Sundernagar at the hands of relatives of the respondent, because all the relatives of the respondent are permanent residents of Tehsil Sundernagar and always threatened the petitioner to give divorce to the respondent for which the petitioner is not agreeable.

I have heard Sh. G.S. Palsra, Advocate alongwith Ms. Leena Guleria, Advocate for the petitioner and Sh. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate for the respondent.

It cannot be denied that the respondent as arbiter litis or Dominus litis has a right to choose any forum. This is however subject to control under Sections 22 to 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The burden lies upon the applicant to make out a strong case for transfer as mere balance of convenience in favour of petitioner in any Court is not a sufficient ground. Though, in a given case it may be a relevant consideration. Here even the balance of convenience can not be considered in favour of the petitioner since the petitioner admittedly is residing at Mumbai and in any case is required to attend the proceedings in Himachal Pradesh either at Mandi or Sundernagar.

Powers u/s 24 of the CPC can not be exercised ipse dixit. Some of the factors which are required to be taken into account for transfer of proceedings have been set out by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in Kulwinder Kaur @ Kulwinder Gurcharan Singh Vs. Kandi Friends Education Trust and Others, as follows:

Reading Sections 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 the plaintiff or the defendant or witnesses; convenience or 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 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 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 "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.

Though Section 24 of CPC confers comprehensive powers on the Court to transfer suits, appeals or other proceedings "at any stage" either on an application by any party or suo-moto although, the discretionary power on transfer of cases can not be imprisoned with a strait jacket of any cast iron formula unanimously applicable to all situations, it can not be gainsaid that power to transfer suit must be exercised with due care and caution.

Now, coming to the facts of the present case, the petitioner has not even placed on record any document which may prove the existence of any threat or whereby such threat perception could be visualized. Except a bald statement in the petition no other supporting document with regard to the same has been placed on record.

The cumulative fact of the aforesaid discussion is that there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.