Hardship If Any And Not Convenience Of Parties Relevant Criterion For Deciding Transfer Petitions U/S 24 CPC: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has said that courts should consider the hardships that would be caused to the parties and not look at the convenience of the parties, while deciding an application made under Section 24 of CPC seeking to transfer proceedings pending from one court to another. A single judge bench of Justice E.S.Indiresh dismissed a petition filed by a wife seeking to transfer the proceedings pending on the file of Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore to the competent Family Court at Doddaballapura. It was submitted by the petitioner that it is difficult for her to attend the proceedings regularly in Bangalore. However, the counsel for the respondent contended that petitioner was working at Chikkaballapura and the proceedings is at the stage of cross-examination of the petitioner herein and accordingly sought for dismissal of the petition. The bench went through the records and said, "It is also a well settled principle that convenience of the parties is not the ground to seek transfer of petition under Section- 24 of Code of Civil Procedure but the hardship that would cause to the parties should be looked into." Then it referred to the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Subramaniam Swamy vs Ramakrishna Hegde, 1990 (1) SCC 4, wherein, it is held that mere convenience of the parties is not criteria but there must be sufficient cause shown in the transfer petition that the trial chosen forum will result in denial of justice to the parties. Accordingly it said, "Following the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court and taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is working at Chikkaballapura. I am of the view that the distance between Doddaballapura to Bangalore is commutable in nature. Therefore, I do not find any acceptable grounds to transfer the petition from competent court Bangalore to Doddaballapura. Accordingly, the Civil Petition is dismissed." Case Title: H K SUMA v. M SANTHOSH Case No: CIVIL PETITION NO. 367 OF 2021 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 431 Date of Order: 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022 Appearance: H M HARSHA, ADVOCATE for petitioner; R P SOMASHEKARAIAH, ADVOCATE for respondent. Click Here To Read/Download Order

Hardship If Any And Not Convenience Of Parties Relevant Criterion For Deciding Transfer Petitions U/S 24 CPC: Karnataka High Court

Mustafa Plumber

Tags