Skip to main content

Power to transfer a case must be exercised with due care, caution and circumspection

In Satnam Kaur v. Gurjeet Singh, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana said that Cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 of CPC is that, ends of justice demand transfer of suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider plea of transfer, Courts have to take into consideration economic soundness of either of parties, social strata of spouses and behavioural pattern, their standard of life antecedent to marriage and subsequent thereto and circumstances of either of parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella, they are seeking their sustenance to life. Generally, it is wife's convenience which must be looked at by Courts, while deciding a transfer application.

Supreme Court in Kulwinder Kaur @ Kulwinder Gurcharan Singh's case observed that, although 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, power to transfer a case must be exercised with due care, caution and circumspection. Reading Sections 24 and 25 of CPC 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 or inconvenience of a particular place of trial having regard to the nature of evidence on points involved in suit; issues raised by parties; reasonable apprehension in mind of litigant that, he might not get justice in Court in which suit is pending; important questions of law involved or a considerable section of public interested in 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 question of transfer of a suit, appeal or other proceeding. They are, however, illustrative in nature and by no means be treated as exhaustive.

In case of Dr. Subramaniam Swamy, Supreme Court held that, question of expediency would depend on facts and circumstances of each case but paramount consideration for exercise of power must be to meet ends of justice. It is true that, if more than one Court has jurisdiction under Code to try suit, Plaintiff as dominus litis has a right to choose Court and Defendant cannot demand that, suit be tried in any particular court convenient to him. Mere convenience of parties or any one of them may not be enough for exercise of power but it must also be shown that trial in chosen forum will result in denial of justice.

In view of law laid down by Supreme Court as well as different High Courts, including this Court, it is unhesitatingly held that, Applicant-wife is entitled for getting petition under Section 9 of Act, transferred from SAS Nagar (Mohali) to Moga, so as to enable her to pursue litigation without facing any undue hardship or harassment at hands of Respondent-husband. It is settled principle of law that, justice is not only to be done but it should also appear to have been done. If applicant-wife is forced to go from Moga to SAS Nagar (Mohali), it would amount to denial of justice to her. Thus, to strike a balance between parties with a view to do complete and substantial justice and proceeding on a holistic view of matter, this Court is of considered view that it, would be just and expedient to transfer petition under Section 9 of Act from SAS Nagar (Mohali) to Moga. Instant transfer application deserves to be accepted and same is allowed. Petition under Section 9 of the Act titled as Gurjeet Singh v. Satnam Kaur filed by the respondent-husband is ordered to be transferred from SAS Nagar (Mohali) to Moga.

Comments

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...