ORDER The petitioner filed O.S.No.36 of 2010 in the Court of V Additional District Judge, Rajahmundry against the respondents for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. She is said to be residing at Vizianagaram. The Tr.C.M.P. is filed with a prayer to transfer the suit to the Court of District Judge, Vizianagaram. The ground pleaded by her is that she is the resident of Vizianagaram, and is taking treatment for the rheumatic arthritis and other related ailments, from a Doctor at Vizianagaram. The Doctor is said to have advised her not to move out of that place. Stating these facts, she filed this petition, with a prayer to transfer the suit. 2. Heard Sri K.S. Mallikarjuna Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Whether one goes by the principle that a suit must be instituted in the Court, within whose territorial jurisdiction the defendants reside, or that the subject matter of the suit is situated, the suit instituted by the petitioner was to be filed in the Court at Rajahmundry, and she did so, correctly. The only ground pleaded by the petitioner, seeking transfer of the suit is, her physical ailment. That, in fact, was there, when she filed the suit. 4. The jurisdiction of a District Court, or High Court, under Section 24 of the C.P.C., can be exercised, mostly in such a way, that the Court, to which the proceedings are transferred, would have jurisdiction from one point of view, or the other. In certain cases, even if a Court, to which the proceedings are transferred, does not have jurisdiction from any angle, the transfer becomes possible, in case, another suit between the same parties, or in relation to the same transaction, or cause of action, is pending in that Court. In such a case, a bridge gets provided between both the proceedings, so that the factors that determine the jurisdiction of a Court, pleaded in one suit, can flow, at least in part, to the other. Section 24 of the C.P.C. cannot be pressed into service to transfer the suit to a Court, which does not have a semblance of jurisdiction, pecuniary, territorial, subject-matter, or otherwise. Section 24 of the C.P.C. cannot be pressed into service to transfer the suit to a Court, which does not have a semblance of jurisdiction, pecuniary, territorial, subject-matter, or otherwise. It is in rare cases, such as, where threat to life of one party or the other is strongly urged, that the request for transfer of pending suit to a Court, which does not otherwise have jurisdiction may be considered. 5. The place of residence of a plaintiff in a suit is not at all recognized under the C.P.C, as a factor, to determine the forum. It is only in respect of proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act (for short 'the Act'), that too, as regards the proceedings to be instituted by a woman spouse, that an exception is carved out. Section 19(iii)(a) of the Act enables the woman spouse to institute proceedings in the Court, within whose territorial jurisdiction she resides, as on the date of institution of the proceedings. Barring that, there is no occasion for a plaintiff in a suit to institute the proceedings in a Court, within whose territorial jurisdiction she resides, only on the basis of his or her residence, within the jurisdiction of that Court. 6. The Tr.CM.P. is therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.