SWAPAN CHANDRA SUR Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Regulation 50 of the Assam Frontier (Administrations of Justice) Regulation 1945 nead with Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for transfer of Title Suit No. 2 of 1980 pending in the Court of the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Roing, Dibang Valley District (Arunachal Pradesh) to the Court of the learned Deputy Commissioner, Karbi Anglong, Diphu.

(2.) The aforesaid Title Suit No. 2 of 1990 has been filed in the Court of Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley District, Roing, Arunachal Pradesh by the State Bank of India, opposite party No. 1 against the petitioner No. 1 as borrower and the petitioner No.2 the opposite party No. 2 and late Kaling Lengo as guarantors for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,01,285.71 along with pendentelite and future interest at the rate of 12.1% per annum and for a declaration of charge oven the vehicle hypothecated by the petitioner in favour of the opposite party No. 1. The ground that has been taken in the petition for the transfer of the aforesaid suit to the Court of the learned Deputy Commissioner, Karbi Anglong , Diphu is that since Roing is situated in a remote interior in Dibang Valley District, no advocate is willing to go to Roing for the purpose of defending the petitioners in the aforesaid suit. It has been further stated in the petition for transfer that both the petitioners are residents of Diphu Town in Karbi Anglong District of Assam and they have to go by bus or train from Diphu to Tinsukia Town which is at a distance of 380 K.M. from Diphu and thereafter a further distance of 60 K.M. from Tinsukia to Dhola and from Dhola the petitioners have to cross the mighty Brahmaputra and two other rivers and after crossing the ferry they have to again go by road to Rating. It has been further stated by the petitioners that although there is a Court of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Roing, no Additional Deputy Commissioner is posted there and the Deputy Commissioner comes to Roing by means of a helicopter from the district headquarter at Anini as there is no road communication between Anini and Roni. On these facts, Mr. C.K.S. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that unless the suit is transferred to Diphu, the petitioners will go undefended in the said suit.

(3.) An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the opposite party No.1 State Bank of India, wherein it has been inter-alia stated that Roing is well connected with the District Headquarters with regular bus and private transport as well as weekly helicopter service and that the opposite party No. 1. has filed a number of cases in the Court of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Roing lagainst other parties and the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Roing is holding Court regularly. The opposite party No. 1 has also stated that in the affidavit-in-opposition that besides local Advocates of Roing, more than 20 Advocates from Margherita, Tinsukia, Dibrugarh and Dhemaji Bars regularly attend and conduct suits and cases in the Courts at Roing and that the Advocate of the opposite party No. 1 is also attending the Courts in different cases. The opposite Party No. 1 has alleged in the said affidavit-in-opposition that the petitioners have filed this revision only to delay the execution of an orden of attachment of the vehicle hypothecated in favour the bank passed in the aforesaid suit by the Court of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Roing. An affidavit-in-opposition has also been filed by the opposite party No. 2 Kali Pada Saha, stating that he is the guarantor for the suit loan granted by the opposite party No. 1 to the petitioner No. 1 and that the petitioners after availing the loan purchased a Tata Vehicle and were operating the same at Roing and have now shifted alongwith the said vehicle to Diphu. He has further stated that after receiving summons of the aforesaid suit, he has already engaged a local Advocate Sri Toni Pertin and has filed a written statement in the suit but the petitioners are adopting delaying tactics as a result of which the aforesaid suit is pending since long. The opposite party No. 2 has also stated in the affidavit-in-opposition that there is regular Government ferry and other private ferry service for crossing the river Brahmaputra and that there is regular road communication and weekly helicopter service to Roing and that more than 20 Advocates from nearby district headquarter are regularly attending Courts at Roing in different cases. On the basis of these facts stated in the two affidavits-in-opposition, the learned Advocates for opposite parties No. 1 and 2 opposed the prayer for transfer of the suit from Roing Arunachal Pradesh to Diphu, Assam.