Arun Kondaji ShintreversusBalwant Kondaji Shintre Since deceased through legal heirs

                                                                           57-MCA-213-2026.docx


              rrpillai         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                           MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 213 OF 2026


                          Arun Kondaji Shintre                 …     Applicant
                               Vs.
                          Balwant Kondaji Shintre              …     Respondents
                          since deceased through LRs


                          Ms. Isha Hajare i/b. Ms. Sonali Chavan for the Applicant.
                          Mr. Vishal Tambat a/w. Ms. Chaitali Bhogle and Mr. Sejal
                          Mhaskar for the Respondents.

                                            CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

                                            DATE :      23rd SEPTEMBER 2026

                          ORDER :


                          1.    This miscellaneous civil application is filed by the

                          plaintiff to transfer the Special Civil Suit No. 308 of 1999 filed

                          before the Civil Court at Nashik to the City Civil Court at

                          Dindoshi, Mumbai. Learned counsel for the applicant submits

                          that the applicant is 80 years of age and suffers from 80%

                          disability. She submits that in April 2026 the applicant

                          suffered from severe pneumonia and was admitted to

                          hospital and remained bedridden for a few days. She

             Digitally
                          therefore submits that the applicant is facing hardship and
             signed by
             RAJESHWARI
RAJESHWARI   RAMESH
RAMESH       PILLAI
PILLAI       Date:
             2026.09.24
             18:06:21
             +0530                                       1/4
                                                  57-MCA-213-2026.docx


inconvenience to travel from Mumbai which is his place of

residence to Nashik where he has filed the suit. She

therefore submits that considering the age and the

inconvenience caused to the applicant the suit be transferred

as prayed.


2.    Learned counsel for the respondents submits that

respondent no. 1 is also 80 years of age. He further submits

that the suit is at the stage of recording evidence of

defendant no. 1 who is 80 years of age. The applicant’s i.e.

the plaintiffs’ evidence is completed.


3.    The suit is for partition and separate possession of the

suit property situated within the jurisdiction of the civil court of

Nashik. He further submits that the applicant’s disability is

much prior to the filing of the suit. Hence, the grounds raised

cannot be accepted to transfer the suit when it is at the

stage of recording evidence and partly the evidence is

already recorded. He has relied upon copy of the roznama

filed along with the reply to submit that the suit is at the stage

of hearing, i.e. recording of evidence and therefore at this

stage it would not be convenient to transfer the suit to a

different court.


                                2/4
                                                 57-MCA-213-2026.docx


4.     I have perused the papers of the application. There is

no dispute that the applicant’s disability is of the year 1980,

much prior to the suit filed by the applicant in 1999. The

illness due to pneumonia was a temporary period and cannot

be considered as a ground of inconvenience. The applicant’s

evidence is already completed and now the suit is pending

for evidence of the respondents. Hence, at this stage it would

not be proper to transfer the suit to a different court.


5.     The     reasons   mentioned    for   inconvenience     and

hardship are not any recent grounds as the applicant has

filed the suit in 1999 despite the disability and the suit is now

at the stage of recording evidence. Hence, the learned

counsel for the respondents has relied upon the decision of

the Apex Court in Kulwinder Kaur Alias Kulwinder Gurcharan

Singh vs. Kandi Friends Education Trust and Others 1. In view

of the legal principles settled by the Apex Court the balance

of convenience or inconvenience to the parties and

witnesses and place of trial with regard to the nature of

evidence and the issues involved in the suit, a reasonable

apprehension in the mind of the litigant that he might not get

justice in the court in which the suit is pending, interest of

1 (2008) 3 SCC 659

                                3/4
                                                57-MCA-213-2026.docx


justice may demand transfer of his suit are stated as some of

the instances germane to consider the question of transfer. It

is also held by the Apex Court that the discretionary power of

transfer cannot be exercised within a straight jacket formula

and it has to be considered with due care, caution and

circumspection.


6.    In the present case, there is no valid ground raised to

transfer the suit. At the stage of trial when the evidence of the

plaintiff is already completed and the respondents’ evidence

is being recorded, it would not be in the interest of justice to

transfer the suit.


7.     So far as the suit property for partition is concerned, it

is also situated within the jurisdiction of the court where the

suit is pending. Hence, I do not see any reason to transfer

the suit.


8.    This is not a fit case to exercise the discretionary

jurisdiction under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure,

1908 (“CPC”) to transfer the suit. Hence, the miscellaneous

civil application is dismissed.



                                           [GAURI GODSE, J.]

                                  4/4