ORDER: The respondent filed O.S.No.2689 of 2006, in the court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, against the petitioners, for the relief of permanent injunction, to restrain them and their agents, from using the logo and name of 'Life Insurance Agents Federation of India' (LIAFI), which is said to be owned by it. The trial court issued summons. On receiving the same, the petitioners approached this court, by filing this transfer CMP. It is stated that the 1st petitioner is a resident of Nagpur and the 2nd petitioner is a resident of Kolkata, and that no cause of action has arisen at Visakhapatnam. They seek transfer of the suit to any court at Nagpur of Maharastra State, or Kolkata of West Bengal State. It is stated that they are finding it difficult to defend themselves in the suit, and they have received threatening calls, endangering safety of their lives. Various proceedings that ensued in relation to the activities of the LIC agents Federation, are mentioned in detail. 2. The respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit, opposing the Transfer CMP. It is stated that the suit was filed in a Court, which had jurisdiction to entertain it, and the various grounds pleaded by the petitioners are without any basis. 3. Sri Ghanshyamdas Mandhani, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that at no point of time the petitioners were the members of the respondent, nor did they undertake any activity in the city of Visakhapatnam, or around it. He submits that in case the respondent intends to seek any relief, the suit ought to have been filed in the court, within whose territorial jurisdiction the petitioners reside. He pleads the grounds of convenience and safety of the petitioners. 4. Sri K.S.R Murthy, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the transfer CMP itself is not maintainable, since the transfer is sought to a court, which is outside the state of Andhra Pradesh. He further contends that the various facts pleaded by the petitioner would, at the most, have a bearing upon the jurisdiction of the trial court, which in turn is to be decided, either as a preliminary issue, or as one of the issues. He submits that the allegations, as to lack of safety to petitioners, are invented for the purpose of the transfer CMP. 5. He submits that the allegations, as to lack of safety to petitioners, are invented for the purpose of the transfer CMP. 5. The objection raised by the respondent, about the maintainability of the Transfer CMP, needs to be dealt with first. It is true that the court, to which the transfer of the suit sought for, is not the subordinate to this High Court. However, a plain reading of Section 23(3) of CPC, makes it clear that it is permissible for this court to entertain the transfer CMP, where a suit is sought to be transferred from a court subordinate to it, to a court outside the state. Therefore, the objection raised by the respondent cannot be sustained. 6. The ground, on which transfer of proceedings from one court to another can be sought, cannot be stated exhaustively. In fact, Section 24 of CPC does not stipulate the grounds, on which alone the transfer of proceedings can be ordered. They include the convenience of the parties, the doubt expressed as to the existence of cause of action in the suit, and jurisdiction of the court, in which it is filed. In the instant case, the respondent did not state in its plaint that the petitioners are its members. Further, no acts or omissions, on the part of the petitioners, are said to have taken place, within the territorial jurisdiction of the court at Visakhapatnam. Except that the office of the respondent is located at Visakhapatnam, no other factor appears to be relevant, or treated as the basis, for instituting the suit at Visakhapatnam. 7. The relief claimed in the suit is not in relation to any immovable property, nor it is a case, where the immovable properties are situated in the territorial limits of more courts, than one. The claim is not the one, for compensation for wrong to a person, or movables. Therefore, Sections 17 and 19 of CPC do not have application, in the matter of choosing the forum. The only relevant provision is Section 20 of CPC, which mandates that a suit must be instituted in a court, within whose territorial jurisdiction the defendant resides. The other eventuality, viz, the place, where the cause of action has arisen, does not apply in this case, since no act attributable to the petitioners has taken place at Visakhapatnam. The only relevant provision is Section 20 of CPC, which mandates that a suit must be instituted in a court, within whose territorial jurisdiction the defendant resides. The other eventuality, viz, the place, where the cause of action has arisen, does not apply in this case, since no act attributable to the petitioners has taken place at Visakhapatnam. Though, by and large these are aspects to be taken into account, while dealing with the objection raised about the jurisdiction of a court, the petitioners cannot be compelled to undergo the ordeal of prosecuting the proceedings at a place, which is far off from their abode. The petitioners themselves offered that both of them are prepared to defend the proceedings either at Nagpur, or Kolkata. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the Transfer CMP is allowed, and O.S.No.2689 of 2006 is transferred to the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge (or its equivalent) at Nagpur. On receiving the record, the court to which the suit is transferred, shall issue notice to all the parties, and decide the case, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.