Research › Browse › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

1996 DIGILAW 49 (GAU)

Ruben Choudhury v. Biren Dutta

1996-03-21

S.BARMAN ROY

body1996
This petition under section 24 CPC has been filed by the plaintiffs seeking transfer of TS No. 19 of 1994 from the Court of learned District Judge, Nalbari to any Court of competent jurisdiction at Guwahati. 2. The case of the petitioners is that the suit was instituted on 25.7.94. In the said suit, some ad interim injunction order was passed on the vary day when the said suit was filed. Soon, thereafter on 30.7.94, petitioner No. 2 Dr. Satyendra Narayan Choudhury was kidnapped by some extremist belonging to some under ground organisation and he was kept in wrongful confinement in some village for about a month and ultimately on 30.8.94 petitioner No. 2 was recovered by the police. Petitioner No. 1 Dr. Ruben Choudhury is the son of the petitioner No. 2. In the petition various other instances of violence and application of criminal force have been referred for which, the petitioners apprehend danger to their lives at b Nalbari. I do not like to discuss all such incidents in detail in this order. But the fact that the petitioner No. 2 was kidnapped on 30.7.94 and he was ultimately rescued by the police about a month thereafter has not been denied by the respondent in their counter affidavit Respondents merely pleaded their ignorance of any such incident of kidnapping. It is further stated in the petition that the Govt of Assam has provided the petitioners with armed security personnel, as the Govt was satisfied that there was threat to their life. Further case of the petitioners is that one of the respondents, who is defendant in the suit, was arrested by the police in connection within aforesaid case of kidnapping and he was later granted bail sometime thereafter. The other defendant absconded apprehending that he might be arrested by the police in connection with the aforesaid case. However, / the respondents have denied the respondent Deepak Dutta was earlier arrested by the police. Therefore, this part of the petitioners case is disputed. But one of the prominent circumstances in the case is that the suit was instituted on 25.7.94 and injunction was granted on that very day against the defendants and within 5 days thereafter on 30.7.94 petitioner No. 2 was kidnapped. Therefore, this part of the petitioners case is disputed. But one of the prominent circumstances in the case is that the suit was instituted on 25.7.94 and injunction was granted on that very day against the defendants and within 5 days thereafter on 30.7.94 petitioner No. 2 was kidnapped. Though, it does not amount to proof that the respondents were concerned in any manner with the kidnapping of petitioner No. 2, this circumstances surely create serious suspicion about the involvement of the defendants in the incident of kidnapping. 3. Relying on this circumstance, and as they are apprehending danger to their lives at Nalbari, they filed this petition seeking transfer of this case from the District Judge Courts at Nalbari to any other Court of competent jurisdiction at Guwahati. Further case of the petitioners is that as the petitioners threat to their life, they have shifted their residence to Guwahati since quite sometime ago. They further apprehended that if they are required to visit Nalbari in connection with the aforesaid case, they may be killed or kidnapped and because of such apprehension of violence, they have filed this present petition seeking transfer. 4. Mr. N. Chakravarty, learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that respondents are poor. It is beyond their means to conduct the case % at Guwahati or bring their witness at Guwahati or engage a counsel to conduct their case at Guwahati. The distances between Guwahati and Nalbari is about 69 KM. On the other hand, Mr. Chakravarty states that distance is about 90 KM. 5. Be that as it may, it cannot be disputed that apprehension of danger to life of the petitioners is honestly entertained by the petitioners, as otherwise, Govt would not have provided them with armed security. Mr. Chakravarty submits that as armed security has been provided to the petitioners., they can easily go to Nalbari on the fixed dates in connection with the case. But it is a matter of common knowledge that, now a days, sometimes even armed securities are not considered sufficient to provide security to the people. That apart, petitioner was kidnapped and kept in confinement by some unknown persons for about a month and thereafter, he was recovered by the police. 6. But it is a matter of common knowledge that, now a days, sometimes even armed securities are not considered sufficient to provide security to the people. That apart, petitioner was kidnapped and kept in confinement by some unknown persons for about a month and thereafter, he was recovered by the police. 6. It is true that defendant may find it difficult to bring his witnesses to Guwahati as according to him he is a poor man. But that difficulty can be met, if , the petitioners are directed to pay cost of producing witnesses, "therefore the expenditure which is likely to be incurred by the defendant for producing witnesses will be paid by the petitioners as and when directed by the trial Court. As regards the engagement of a counsel at Guwahati it is for the defendant to engage their counsel. If they are really unable to engage any counsel because of financial reason, they are at liberty to approach appropriate Legal Aid Committee, 7. Mr. N. Chakravarty, cited AIR 1982 SG 52, But after going through the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, I find that in the facts and circumstances of the instant this decision of the Supreme Court has no application. Here in the instant case, petitioners apprehend danger of their lives if they are to visit Nalbari in connection with the case. That danger is found to be real. In a situation like this, I am left with no alternative, but direct to transfer the case to the Court of the Assistant District Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati. 8. Accordingly, I direct the learned District Judge, Nalbari to transmit the records of the TS No. 19 of 1994 and another connected misc case to the Court of the learned Assistant District Judge No. 1, Guwahati for trial and disposal in accordance with law after duly notifying the parties. I further direct that for e producing witnesses petitioner is at liberty to approach the learned trial Court and the trial Court may direct the petitioner to pay the expenses for producing witnesses before the trial Court on behalf of the defendants as may be assessed by the trial Court. Petitioner shall pay bus fare to the defendants for their coming to Guwahati for attending the Court on the dates fixed. Amount of such bus fare shall be such as may be determined by the trial Court. Petitioner shall pay bus fare to the defendants for their coming to Guwahati for attending the Court on the dates fixed. Amount of such bus fare shall be such as may be determined by the trial Court. Petition is accordingly allowed. No cost.