BRAJABANDHU MISHRA Vs. GOPIKRUSHNA PANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is the sole defendant in Civil Suit No.31 of 2009 pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Phulbani, has filed this petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking transfer of the aforesaid suit from Phulbani to the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bhubaneswar on the sole ground that he is suffering from severe Lumbar Spondylosis and Sciatica Syndrome and has been advised not to take long journey.

(2.) Learned counsel for the opposite party (plaintiff in the Court below) objecting to the prayer of the petitioner for transfer on the sole ground of health only, submits that the suit cannot be transferred from Phulbani to Bhubaneswar for the convenience of the defendant especially when the plaintiff has the choice of the forum so long as the suit is not subject to the defect of local jurisdiction.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the case of the Karnataka High Court in Mrs. Noreen R. Srikantaiah vs. L. Dasarath Ramaiah, Gulbarga and another, 1985 AIR(Kar) 208to substantiate his contention to the effect that in the said case, on health ground of the petitioner, transfer of case from Gulbarga to Bangalore was allowed. Learned counsel for the opposite party on the other hand oppugns the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the ratio in the aforesaid case does not apply to the fact of the present case, in as much as, the petitioner in that case was a destitute lady and the ratio in that case relates to the question whether the Tribunal constituted by the State Government under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 is a Court subordinate to the High Court so as to attract the general power of transfer under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code.