LAXMIBAI GULABRAO Vs. MARTAND DAULATRAO DESHMUKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for transfer by 24 out of 57 defendants against whom the plaintiffs had filed a suit in forma pauperis for possession of immoveable properties in the districts of Amravati and Akola on the ground that the transfers in question were made by the deceased Karta of the family without any legal necessity. Their case here is that opponents Nos. 1 to 6, i.e. the plaintiffs, have filed an application in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Akola, under Order XXXIII, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, for permission to sue in forma pauperis. That application is registered in the Court as Regular Misc. Case No. 388 of 1963. They further state that the cause of action is stated in the plaint to have arisen from 1941 to 1957 at various places where the properties in suit are situated. According to them, there are in all 57 defendants out of whom 4 are reported to be dead and 37 of them are residents of Amravati district and the rest of them are from Akola district. The grievance of the applicants is that it is extremely inconvenient for them to, attend the proceedings of the said case at Akola on every date of hearing. The applicants arc principally the residents of Shendurni Bk., Tiwasa and Mozari and for going to Akola they have first to go to Amravati, a distance of 27 miles, and from Amravati to catch a train or bus for Akola. According to them, this would be very expensive. They do not also know any lawyer at Akola. It is, therefore, their plea that the cause of action for the claim against the applicants who are from Amravati district has arisen independently at the places of their residence in Amravati district and the opponents could very well have filed a separate suit at Amravati against them in respect of the properties in their possession. They say that the object of the opponents in joining these applicants and other persons residing in Amravati district as parties to the suit at Akola appeared to bring pressure on them by putting them to great inconvenience and hardship and requiring them to spend amounts over the litigation which they can ill -afford. It is, therefore, prayed that this Court should transfer the proceedings registered as Regular Misc. Case No. 388 of 1963, which is to get permission to sue in forma pauperis, to an appropriate Court in Amravati district or, in the alternative, this Court may be pleased to direct the opponents to institute proceedings against the applicants in respect of claims preferred against them in the Court at Akola.

(2.) THE learned advocate for the applicants has in the beginning raised a contention that the Akola Court whore this suit is proposed to be filed had no jurisdiction to entertain 'the suit, because the defendants not only come from one district, viz., Akola, but also from another district, viz, Amravati. It is his contention also that the properties are all spread over not only in the district of Akola but also in the district of Amravati. It was, therefore, his contention that the opponents could not file such a suit in the Akola Court and that the Akola Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit at all. But this is an application under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code which, states that on the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and after hearing such of them as desire to be heard, this Court may, at any stage, transfer any suit before it for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same, or withdraw any suit pending in any Court subordinate to it and transfer the same for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same. Now, therefore, when this is an application for transfer of the suit under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, the learned advocate for the applicants cannot contend in such an application that the opponents could not have filed this suit and that the Akola Court had no jurisdiction to entertain that suit. It is not open to the defendants to contend here that the Akola Court had no jurisdiction to entertain this suit and at the same time ask for the transfer of the case to some other Court. In Krishnaji Rao v. Gokuldas A.I.R.[1955] Mys. 115 such a proposition is also followed. The learned Counsel for the applicants after the law was brought to his notice, has fairly conceded that he could not argue on the point of jurisdiction of the Akola Court to entertain the suit. - -

(3.) THEREFORE , this application is dismissed with costs.