DHARNI DHAR SHARMA Vs. ASHOK SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present transfer application has been filed by the applicant -defendant under Sec. 24 of CPC seeking transfer of the suit being No. 80/2010 pending in the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Beawar to the Court at Jaipur. It has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Ashwani Chobisa, for the applicant that the applicant is very aged person and is suffering from Hyper Tension, backache, COPD and has also taken treatment of tuberculosis, as per the certificate produced by him, and therefore, it is difficult for him to travel from Jaipur to Beawar on every date of hearing fixed by the Court at Beawar. As regards the jurisdiction of the Jaipur Court, he has submitted that Sec. 24 is very comprehensive provision and it should be interpreted in the manner beneficial to the concerned parties, which should serve the intention of the legislation. Mr. Chobisa, has relied upon the decision of this Court in case of Maliram Nemichand Jain, Jaipur v. Rajasthan Financial Corpn., Jaipur, : 1974 RLW page 94, to submit that the word "competent" occurring in Sec. 24 should be given wider meaning and that transfer to Court which does not have territorial jurisdiction would not by itself be illegal. However, the learned counsel Mr. Sandeep Maheswari, for the respondent has relied upon the decision of the Kamataka High Court in case of Syndicate Bank v. K. Gangadhar & Ors., : AIR 1992 Kar page 163, wherein it has been held inter alia that the word "competent" occurring in Sec. 24(1) includes both pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction. He also submitted that the suit is pending at the evidence stage and the same should not be transferred as prayed for.

(2.) IN order to appreciate the respective submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, it would be beneficial to reproduce the relevant part of Sec. 24(1)(a) of the CPC, which reads as under: - -