SHIV KUMARI DEVENDRA OJHAversusRAMAJOR SHITLA PRASAD OJHA AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1997 INSC 19
- Decided
- 13 January 1997
- Disposal
- Disposed off
Holding
The Court held that there was no justification for transferring the suit and dismissed the transfer petition.
Summary
The petitioner, a lady, filed a transfer petition seeking to move a succession application pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Valsad, Gujarat, to the Civil Judge, Sadar, Pratapgarh, Uttar Pradesh, alleging difficulty in traveling and meeting expenses. The respondents offered to bear her travel and stay costs, proposing to pay her Rs. 750 in advance for each court appearance. The Court examined whether these circumstances justified a transfer under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure and found no sufficient reason to relocate the case. It directed the respondents to pay the stipulated amount and allowed the petitioner to seek financial assistance for counsel through a separate application. The Court also ordered the immediate disposal of the restoration application and the main matter to be taken up expeditiously. Consequently, the transfer petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner’s inability to travel and financial constraints justify transferring the succession suit to another district under Section 25 CPC.
- Whether the court can order financial assistance to the petitioner for travel and legal representation.
Legislation cited
Subjects
Judgment
A SHIV KUMARI DEVENDRA OJHA
v.
RAMAJOR SHITLA PRASAD O.THA AND ORS.
JANUARY 13, 1997
B [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : Section 25.
Supreme Court-Power to transfer cases-Succession application pend-
C ing before Civil Judge, Va/sad-Petition filed by petitioner for transfer to Civil
Judge in Pratapgarh District-<Jround that petitioner being a lady was unable
to travel and also· would face difficulty in meeting the expenditure-Respon-
dents ready to bear her eJ.penditure for travel and stay-Held in such cir-
cumstances there was no justification for trans[erring the mattel'-Direction
issued to respondents to pay Rs. 750 to petitioner on each occasiorr-Liberty
D to petitioner to file application for financial assistance from respondents for
engaging counsel at Va/sad.
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Transfer Petition (C) No. 281
of 1996.
E (Under Article 139A(l)/(2) of the Constitution of India)
Ms. Asha Jain Madan for the Petitioner.
R.D. Upadhyay for the Respondents.
F The following Order of the Court was delivered :
The petitioner has filed this petition for transfer of proceedings, viz.,
Succession Application No. 43/95 along with Misc. Application No. '23/96
titled Ramajor Shit/a Prasad Ojha & Ors. v. Shiv Kumari Devendra Ojha,
pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Valsad, Gujarat to
G the competent court of Civil Judge at Sadar District Pratapgarh in Uttar
Pradesh. We had adjourned the matter by our Order dated December 9,
1996 to find out whether the suit was still pending or stood disposed of. It
is reported that the matter is still pending and the Civil Judge, Senior
Division in yet to take up the matter. Learned counsel for the Petitioner
H has stated that the Petitioner being a lady is unable to travel from Uttar
214
)
s.K.D. o. v. R.s.P. o1ItA 215
Pradesh to Valsad in Gujarat and it is a really a great difficulty for her to A
meet the expenditure in that behalf. Shri Upadhyay, learned counsel ap-
pearing for the respondents has agreed to bear the expenditure for her
travel and stay whenever she attends court. Under the circumstances, we
do not find that there is any justification for transferring the matter to
Pratapgarh, U.P. Whenever the petitioner goes to the Court, the respon- B
dents would pay Rs. 750 (Rupees seven hundred and fifty only) on each
occasion to the petitioner and the amount would be paid to her in advance.
The petitioner would intimate the Civil Judge, Senior Division who would
direct the respondents to pay the amount to the petitioner.
It is next contended that the petitioner had to engage her counsel C
from Surat since no advocate would be available at Valsad where the suit
t
is pending. We think that the apprehension of the petitioner is not correct.
.j The petitioner is at liberty to engage counsel at Valsad and the counsel
..:; would· give his best to the petitioner in defending her case. If the petitioner
requires any financial assistance from the respondents, it would be open
~'t to her to file an application in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, D
Valsad for this purpose and the same would be ordered by the Civil Judge.
""-j .Learned Civil Judge is directed to dispose of the application for restoration
-.j
immediately and would simultaneously take up the main matter and dis-
pose of the same expeditiously.
The transfer petition is accordingly disposed of.
E
T.N.A. Petition disposed of.
l
'
., /
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.