LAXMIKANT Vs. GOVINDRAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for transfer of suit No. 13 of 1926 pending in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Nagpur, to the Court of the District Judge, Bhandara. The suit is one for partition and possession of moveable and immovable property of over three lacs in value, and, still at a preliminary stage. The present application was admittedly filed before the date of first hearing had come on in the lower Court. The grounds of the application are as follows: In the first place, by much the greater part of the property concerned is situated in the Bhandara District, the only property situated in Nagpur, being a family house worth Rs. 15,000 and a small malik makbuza plot. Secondly, the plaintiff and the majority of the defendants are residents of Bhandara. Thirdly, it is alleged that, in connexion with the matters which are at issue in this case, the great majority of the witnesses will hail from Bhandara and it would be more convenient for the suit to be tried there under Section 17 of the Civil P.C. it is obvious that the suit can be tried either in Bhandara or in Nagpur. On be-half of the applicants it is urged that the balance of convenience is in favour of the suit being tried at Bhandara and that less expense to both parties alike would occur were this ordered, and I have been referred to the decisions in Jotendronauth Mitter v. Raj Kristo Mitter [1889] 16 Cal. 771, Mohabir Rahman v. Hazi Abdur Rahim A.I.R. 1921 Cal. 210, and Inayat Ullah Khan v. Nisar Ahmed Khan A.I.R. 1922 All. 65, in this connexion as being instances where a High Court, on the grounds of the balance of convenience and expeditious disposal ordered transfer of the suit.

(2.) ON behalf of the non-applicants it has been urged that no extraordinary ground for the transfer exists in the present instance. Where more than one forum is possible, it has been suggested that the plaintiff's choice should be the dominant one. Apart from this, it has been urged that the balance of convenience is in favour of the suit proceeding in Nagpur. The plaintiff has engaged counsel in Nagpur and a substantial amount of fees has been paid here. It has also been suggested that Nagpur is connected, not only by rail, but by a regular motor service with Bhandara, and that, in those circumstances the Bhandara witnesses will suffer no material hardship in having to come to Nagpur. This consideration seems to me to cut both ways. If means of communication are easy and frequent between the two places, there ought to be no peculiar difficulty in the plaintiff being able to arrange for the counsel he has engaged in Nagpur to come to Bhandara.