JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS is an application under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the Code) for transfer of Civil Suit No. 13-A of 1983 instituted in the Court of District Judge, Dewas to the Court of District Judge, Ujjain. ( 2. ) CIRCUMSTANCES giving rise to the application are these: The petitioner Shankarsingh instituted the aforesaid civil suit in the District Court, Dewas claiming declaration of title to the house in question situate at Dewas and for possession thereof. ( 3. ) ACCORDING to the petitioner the house in question belonged to his deceased father Bapusingh and by the will dated 8-1-1979 registered in Ujjain, the said Bapusingh has given his property including the house referred to above to him. ( 4. ) SUBSEQUENT to the institution of the aforesaid suit the non-applicant No. 3 Jagdishsingh in 1985 instituted a partition suit as an indigent person. It is pending in the Court of District Judge, Ujjain and is registered as Civil Suit No. 2-A of 1988. It is against the present petitioner and the non-applicants 1 to 5. In the said suit it has been stated that the various items of property at Ujjain together with the aforesaid house situate at Dewas constitute joint family property and he (the non-applicant No. 3) has 1/5th share therein. ( 5. ) IN the aforesaid application under section 24 of the Code it has been stated that in order that possibility of conflicting decisions relating to the house situate at Dewas is obviated and there is no duplication of evidence, it is proper that both the suits are tried by the District Judge, Ujjain. ( 6. ) ONLY the non-applicants 1 and 2 have opposed the application. It is contended by them that they have paid heavy fees to their Advocate who resides at Dewas and it is not possible for them to engage another counsel at Ujjain, in case the transfer application is allowed. It has further been contended that as provided in section 16 of the Code suits have to be instituted where the subject-matter is situate and, therefore,, the District Judge, Ujjain cannot try the suit which pertains to the property situate at Dewas. ( 7. ) THE point for consideration is whether the application deserves to be allowed. ( 8. ) THE second ground of objection may be disposed of first. ( 7. ) THE point for consideration is whether the application deserves to be allowed. ( 8. ) THE second ground of objection may be disposed of first. Section 24 of the Code embodies the general power of transfer and withdrawal by the High Court or the District Court. The power thereunder is discretionary and may be exercised at any stage. The transfer as provided under sub-section (1) of section 24, of the Code may be to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the case. This discretionary power of transfer of proceedings within its jurisdiction is a part of the supervisory jurisdiction by higher Courts. Having regard to the object behind section 24 of the Code and having regard to the nature of the power conferred on the higher Courts, the word competent has to be harmoniously construed as having reference only to pecuniary value and the nature of the suits which the Court has power to try. To interpret the word competent as having reference also to territorial jurisdiction is to render nugatory the general power of transfer embodied in the section. Reference in this connection may usefully be made to the decisions in Mohammad Alis case, AIR 1981 Raj. 176 and Mulraj Doshis case, AIR 1982 Orissa 191 which relate to transfer of execution proceedings. The decisions in Rajmohans case, 1986 (ii) M. P. W. N. 31 and Najma Begums case, 1984 M. P. W. N. 105 are also pertinent. ( 9. ) AS a result of the foregoing discussion I hold that the objection as to territorial jurisdiction cannot be sustained and is repelled. ( 10. ) IT is well-settled that choice of forum made by the plaintiff should not be interfered at the request of the defendant except on very strong grounds. Convenience of parties is not merely a relevant but a material point for consideration in favour of the transfer application. Convenience of parties is, in fact, the basis of all statutory jurisdiction on civil side. With reference to section 24 of the Code the following pertinent observations have been made in the Division Bench decision in Swami Swarupanands case, AIR 1979 M. P. 50 : "the plaintiff as arbiter litis, has a right to choose his own forum and that right should not be interfered with except on very strong grounds. With reference to section 24 of the Code the following pertinent observations have been made in the Division Bench decision in Swami Swarupanands case, AIR 1979 M. P. 50 : "the plaintiff as arbiter litis, has a right to choose his own forum and that right should not be interfered with except on very strong grounds. The search should be for justice and the Court must be satisfied that justice could more likely be done between the parties by refusing to allow plaintiff to continue his suit in the forum of his choice. The onus of establishing sufficient grounds for the transfer lies heavily on the applicant. Preponderance of balance of convenience is of prime consideration for transfer of suit. So the convenience of the parties is a valid ground of transfer. Another factor that has to be taken into consideration is the interest of justice. A case has to be transferred if there is reasonable apprehension of a party to a suit that he might not get justice in the Court where the suit is pending. This may be because the trial Judge is prejudicial or because in the surcharged atmosphere no fair trial is possible at that place. " In the instant case the petitioner who is plaintiff in the civil suit pending at Dewas is himself seeking transfer of the case to Ujjain. In one suit the house situate at Dewas is being claimed as the property of Bapusingh and in the other it has been stated that it constitutes an item of joint Hindu family property. If the two suits are tried by two different Courts, possibility of conflicting decisions relating to the property in question is not ruled out. Further the will on which the suit pending at Dewas is founded, has been registered at Ujjain. ( 11. ) ON a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the view that the balance of convenience is strongly in favour of the transfer of the suit pending in the Court of District Judge, Dewas to the Court of the District Judge, Ujjain. Assuming that the non-applicants 1 and 2 have paid to their counsel at Dewas heavy fees, the same cannot outway the other overwhelming factors in favour of the trial of the suit at Ujjain. ( 12. Assuming that the non-applicants 1 and 2 have paid to their counsel at Dewas heavy fees, the same cannot outway the other overwhelming factors in favour of the trial of the suit at Ujjain. ( 12. ) THERE is no merit in the contention that the petitioner has moved the transfer application with a view to delay the trial and thereby to harass the non-applicants 1 and 2. ( 13. ) AS a result of the foregoing discussion, I find that the application for transfer deserves to be allowed. It is, therefore, allowed and the Civil Suit No. 13-A of 1983 pending in the Court of the District Judge, Dewas is transferred to the Court of the District Judge, Ujjain for disposal according to law. In the circumstances, I make no order as to costs of this petition.