JUDGMENT 1. This is an application under Clause 13 of the Letters Patent and Sec. 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure for transfer of a suit from the Alipore Court (being T. S. No. 13 of 1963) to this Court. 2. By an order of this Court dated December 13, 1954 The Emerald Printing works Ltd. was wound up and the Official Receiver of this Court was appointed the Liquidator. By another order made on February 13, 1962 the Official Liquidator was appointed the Official Liquidator of the Company. The properties of Emerald Printing Works Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the company) were sold pursuant to orders of this Court to Power Plant and Construction co. in or about September 1957. The purchasers however failed to remove the structures within the agreed time and thereupon they created a charge on the said properties in favour of the Official Liquidator for payment of the outstanding dues of the Official Liquidator in the shape of compensation equivalent to rent payable to the landlord of premises No. 81/1 Sarat Bose Road, Calcutta, Darwan's wages, interest etc. The Official Liquidator was holding over the said premises as a monthly tenant at a rent of Rs. 120 per month. In addition to rent the Official Liquidator had to pay Corporation taxes at the rate of Rs. 205 per quarter besides wages of the Darwans posted at the premises. On June 18, 1962 the Official Liquidator made an application to this Court for an order directing the said purchaser to pay the Official Liquidator a sum of Rs. 11,744. 58 np. as arrears of interest, compensation equivalent to rent, Corporation taxes etc. within September 15, 1962, and in default thereof, the structures, press and other articles lying at No. 81/1 Sarat Bose Road be sold by the Official Liquidator by public auction. An order was made directing the Official Liquidator to sell the structures, press and other articles by public auction. The Official Liquidator was directed to make over possession of the premises and surrender the tenancy to the landlord within a month from the sale of the same. The purchaser failed to pay the said sum of Rs. 11,744. 58 np. within the period provided by the aforesaid order and the Official Liquidator thereupon appointed a firm of auctioneers to sell the structures and machinery by public auction. The purchaser failed to pay the said sum of Rs. 11,744. 58 np. within the period provided by the aforesaid order and the Official Liquidator thereupon appointed a firm of auctioneers to sell the structures and machinery by public auction. Thereafter the purchaser made an application to this Court for setting aside the order made on June 18, 1962 and this application was dismissed on December 18, 1962. 3. The petitioner in this application attended the auction held pursuant to orders of this Court and bid at the same and was declared the highest bidder for a sum of Rs. 10,400. One of the conditions of the sale was that the petitioner would remove the structures from the premises within 20 days of delivery of possession. Not content with the dismissal of the first application, the purchaser made another application to this Court to set aside the same and this application was dismissed on or about February 1, 1963. 4. Thereafter the petitioner paid to the Official Liquidator the entire purchase money namely, Rs. 10,400 and also Rs. 520 as Sales Tax. The petitioner also deposited with the Official Liquidator a sum of Rs. 1040 as security deposit. On February 27, 1963 possession of the structures was made over to the petitioner and he was directed to remove the structures by demolishing the same within 20 days from the same date. The petitioner started demolishing the structures on or about February 27, 1963. On or about March 2, 1963 the petitioner was stopped from carrying on further demolition by a Police Inspector who came to the site with some constables under a purported order of the Police Magistrate of Alipore. The petitioner thereupon made enquiries and came to know that the plaintiff in the Alipore suit applied to the Police Magistrate at Alipore under Sec. 144, Criminal Procedure Code and an order was made on this application on February 29, 1963 directing the parties to maintain the status quo. On March 6, 1963 the petitioner was served with a notice of an application from the Fourth Subordinate Judge, Alipore intimating the petitioner that a suit being Title Suit No. 13 of 1953 was filed by one Pratap Krishna Deb on or about March 5, 1963 for a declaration that the said structures stand charged in his favour, for payment of a loan of Rs. 15,000 and also for an injunction restraining the petitioner from proceeding with the demolition work and other reliefs. It was also stated in the said notice that an ad interim order of injunction was issued by the Fourth Subordinate Judge on March 6, 1963 restraining the petitioner from proceeding with the demolition work until the final hearing of the application. The petitioner alleges that the suit was filed and application was made by the said Pratap Krishna Deb at the instance of the said Power Plant and Construction Co. and that the alleged loan and mortgage by deposit of title deeds are false and have been created in collusion between the Power Plant and Construction Co. and the said Pratap Krishna Deb. 5. The petitioner entered appearance in the said Alipore suit on March 13, 1963 being the date on which he was required to show cause against the ad interim injunction. He was given leave to file a petition of objection to the application within March 27, 1963 and he duly filed his petition of objection within the said date. 6. In the aforesaid circumstances the petitioner applies for transfer of the Alipore suit to this Court and for expeditious hearing of the same. The grounds made out by the petitioner are: - (a) Liquidation proceedings are pending before this Court and therefore the title suit sought to be transferred which directly involves matters connected with the liquidation proceedings should be transferred to this court. (b) The subject matter of the alipore suit being premises No. 81/1 Sarat Bose Road is common to the said suit as well as to the liquidation proceedings before this Court. (c) Serious charges have been made against an officer of this Court namely, the Official Liquidator. Such charges have been made in paragraph 24 of the affidavit affirmed by Pratap Krishna Deb on May 15, 1963 in which it is alleged that the Official Liquidator "in collusion with Janab All Imam of No. 5 2 Tiljala Road, 24 Parganas got the said property sold without first redeeming the mortgage in my favour. Such charges have been made in paragraph 24 of the affidavit affirmed by Pratap Krishna Deb on May 15, 1963 in which it is alleged that the Official Liquidator "in collusion with Janab All Imam of No. 5 2 Tiljala Road, 24 Parganas got the said property sold without first redeeming the mortgage in my favour. " In paragraph 12 of the affidavit affirmed by Bijoy Krishna Banerji on June 5, 1963 it is stated "the petitioner in collusion and conspiracy with the Official Liquidator has come forward to make wild statements that in order to defeat and delay the completion of the liquidation proceedings the said Pratap Krishna Deb has instituted the title suit No. 13 of 1963 malafide. It is also worth noticing how anxious the petitioner is to find that the Official liquidator is or should be or would be saddled with further costs and expenses and that landlords would not get possession of the land in question. The petitioner by shedding so much tears for the Official Liquidator and the landlords has openly and clearly exposed himself that his application under Clause 13 of the Letters Patent and in the matter of liquidation proceedings is collusively and malafide made. " 7. In paragraph 5 of the plaint in the Alipore suit the plaintiff has alleged as follows: "on February 20, 1962 the Official Liquidator, High Court, Calcutta took over possession of the properties the subject matter of the mortgage aforesaid from the defendant No. 1 and was in possession thereof till January 28, 1963 on which day he in fraudulent and illegal collusion with the defendant No. 1, Sarat Bose Road, Calcutta to be sold (without first redeeming the charge in the plaintiff's favour) in two lots as follows. " 8. These charges according to the petitioner are serious charges against an officer of this Court who was discharging his duties under order of this Court and should be investigated by this Court and by no other Court. (d) Complicated questions of law and fact will arise at the hearing of the Alipore suit. (e) The result of the Alipore suit will directly affect the liquidation proceedings pending in this Court and the Alipore suit can be heard more expeditiously by this Court which is winding up the affairs of the company. (d) Complicated questions of law and fact will arise at the hearing of the Alipore suit. (e) The result of the Alipore suit will directly affect the liquidation proceedings pending in this Court and the Alipore suit can be heard more expeditiously by this Court which is winding up the affairs of the company. (f) The evidence of the Official Liquidator and production of all relevant books and records lying in his office will be absolutely necessary for the purpose of trial of the Alipore suit. Both the evidence of the Liquidator and also records will be readily available, if the suit is heard by this Court. (g) Sm. Bani Debi the defendant No. 1 resides at No. 27 Nanda Mallick Lane, Calcutta 6 within the original jurisdiction of this Court. (h) Excepting the petitioner himself all the other parties to the suit, live within the jurisdiction of this Court and all the records and proceedings necessary are also available within the jurisdiction of this Court. (i) The balance of convenience is entirely in favour of the suit being transferred to this Court and being tried in this Court. Mr. Tapas Banerji, appearing on behalf of the petitioner referred to the judgment of P. B. Mukharji, J. in Baburam agarwalla v. Jamunadas Ramji and Co. (1) A. I. R. 1951 Cal. 239, 241. Mr. Banerji particularly relied on paragraph 9 of the Report in which P. B. Mukharji, J. held as follows: - "the basic foundation of the Jalpaiguri suit is that there was fraud upon the process of this Court and that there was fraudulent suppression of summons and processes of this Court. This Court therefore is the proper Court which should investigate the fraud which is alleged to have been practiced upon it. The balance of convenience is in favour of a trial by this Court of the Jaipaiguri suit. His client's evidence according to the petition of Jamunadas Ramji is entirely in calcutta. Besides the main witnesses, the Sheriff's Officer and the person who accompanied him to effect service of the summons in the Calcutta suit, are in Calcutta. Records of the Calcutta suit, No. 1273 of 1944 as well as the Sheriff's records are all in Calcutta. . . " 9. Mr. Besides the main witnesses, the Sheriff's Officer and the person who accompanied him to effect service of the summons in the Calcutta suit, are in Calcutta. Records of the Calcutta suit, No. 1273 of 1944 as well as the Sheriff's records are all in Calcutta. . . " 9. Mr. Banerji relied upon the above grounds on which P. B. Mukharji, J. relied for the purpose of directing a transfer of the Jaipaiguri suit to this Court in the above-mentioned case. It will be noticed that in the instant case also facts are to a very large extent similar to the facts involved in Baburam's case. The Official Liquidator of this Court has been charged with fraud and collusion in discharge of his duties under orders of this court. It is therefore fit and proper that this Court should investigate into the conduct of an Officer of this Court. The records and documents lying at the Official Liquidator's office would be absolutely necessary for the purpose of determining the issues involved in the Alipore suit. The official Liquidator himself is a necessary and material witness, more particularly because of the charges of fraud that have been levelled against him. I respectfully agree with the views expressed by P. B. Mukharji, J. in Baburam's case. The grounds in the present application are very similar to the grounds on which an order for transfer of a suit to this Court was made by P. B. Mukharji, J. 10. Mr. Banerji also referred to a decision of D. N. Sinha, J. in Kalidas Roy v. University of Calcutta and Ors. (2) reported in 55 C.W.N. 333. In this case Sinha, J. summarised all the previous decisions bearing on this aspect of the matter and at page 342 he held: "it would cause great public inconvenience if the University has to keep engaged some of its principal officers to look after a protracted trial in the lower Courts, and to file its records a long time before trial, such as is customary in the lower Courts. I further do not accept the argument that litigation in this Court will be more expensive. That plea has been negatived by Ameer Ali, J. in Harendra v. Sarvamangala and by Banerjee, J. in Sudhirendra v. Arunendra and Rupendra Deb Raikat v. Asrumati. I further do not accept the argument that litigation in this Court will be more expensive. That plea has been negatived by Ameer Ali, J. in Harendra v. Sarvamangala and by Banerjee, J. in Sudhirendra v. Arunendra and Rupendra Deb Raikat v. Asrumati. In my opinion, litigation whether in these Courts or in other Courts is just as expensive as the litigant chooses to make it. " Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Pratap Krishna Deb, the plaintiff in the Alipore suit submitted that the property with respect to which a charge is claimed by the plaintiff in the Alipore suit, is outside the jurisdiction of this Court and the proper Court to try a suit relating to a charge on the property is the Alipore Court. He also submitted that there will be no cause for delay in the hearing of the suit in the Alipore Court and that no grounds have been made out for transfer of the suit to this Court. 11. Learned Counsel appearing for the defendant Sm. Bani Debi submitted that the plaintiff in the Alipore Court is the dominus litis and he has chosen his own forum and there is no justification for interfering with his choice merely because the petitioner in this case has alleged that it would be more convenient to try the suit in this Court. 12. There is one other aspect of the matter to which I must refer before I make an order and that is this. The Liquidator had been directed by orders of this Court to surrender the tenancy to the landlord of the premises and to make over possession of the premises to the landlord. So far as winding up of the company is concerned, he has completed his work by selling the assets of the company but he has been restrained by injunction obtained by the plaintiff in the Alipore suit from complying with the orders of this Court relating to surrender of tenancy to the landlord. It should be realised that winding up proceedings should be concluded as early as possible. It would be clear from the facts hereinbefore stated that he has been successfully prevented so far from carrying out his duties as Liquidator. It should be realised that winding up proceedings should be concluded as early as possible. It would be clear from the facts hereinbefore stated that he has been successfully prevented so far from carrying out his duties as Liquidator. Having regard to the judgment of P. B. Mukharji, J. and D. N. Sinha, J. in the two cases discussed by me above and inasmuch as facts are very similar and the considerations which weighed with their Lordships are also almost identical with this case, I make the Rule issued herein absolute. The Alipore suit being T. S. No. 13 of 1963 is directed to be transferred to this Court and to be heard by this Court in its extra-ordinary original Civil Jurisdiction. Costs of this application will be costs in the suit. This order is to be drawn up expeditiously. I make this order under clause 13 of the Letters Patent. The Registrar will inform the Alipore court at the cost of the petitioner about this order. The Registrar will act on a signed copy of the Minutes.