JUDGMENT : Dhiraj Singh Thakur, J. 1. This is a petition filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for transferring the Civil suit titled "Mohan Lal Kant & Anr. v. Mohd. Ramzan Bhat and Ors" from the court of learned Munsiff, Handwara, to any other court of competent jurisdiction at Jammu. Briefly stated, the material facts are that the petitioner filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the respondents in the court of learned Munsiff at Handwara in Kashmir province, in regard to the land measuring 13 kanals 7 marlas, comprising under Khasra No. 1216, situate at Kralgund, of which the petitioner claims to be the absolute owner along with respondent No. 4. 2. It was urged that the private respondents 1 to 3, 5 and 6, in connivance with the private respondent No. 4, forcibly and illegally occupied the land of the petitioner, which compelled him to file the aforementioned civil suit in the court of learned Munsiff at Handwara. The petitioner claims that on the last date of hearing, the petitioner was threatened by the respondents No. 1 and 6 that in case he made his presence on the next date of hearing, he would be eliminated through militant organization. Not only this, the petitioner further submits that the aforementioned respondents with the help some local goons gheraoed the petitioner and it was only after the intervention of some local people that the petitioner could be freed. It is further submitted that even the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner was threatened of dire consequence, which forced him to return the brief to the petitioner. 3. Petitioner claims to be 75 years of age and is stated to be suffering from physical infirmities and medical problems including disc problem and thus, claims that he faces extreme difficulty also in travelling long distances especially the court at Handwara on each and every date of hearing. It was urged that on account of threats extended by the respondents, he fears threat to his life and might be eliminated especially in the prevailing situation in Kashmir valley. 4. It was urged that on account of threats extended by the respondents, he fears threat to his life and might be eliminated especially in the prevailing situation in Kashmir valley. 4. Counsel for the respondents, however, resisted the transfer petition on the ground that the allegations made in the petition were without any basis and that no threat ever was extended to the petitioner and that it was only an excuse to somehow get the matter transferred to Jammu where the respondent-defendants would find it difficult to contest the suit being ordinarily the residents of Kashmir. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner is a migrant, who is stated to have migrated in the year 1990 on account of the situation prevalent in the valley and has been registered also with the Relief Organization as a migrant, proof of which is annexed with the petition. 7. It is the over-all fear factor which prevented the members of the minority community who migrated from valley in the year 1990, from going back to their homes and some of them are living even in migrant camps at Jammu and nearby areas established by the State Government, till date. 8. The State Government understanding the difficulty faced by the migrants has tried to re-habilitate them by providing relief in the shape of ration and cash and this was done only after the State Government realized that the situation in the valley was not totally conducive to the peaceful return of the members of the minority community back to the valley. The migrants like the petitioner herein, who similarly migrated from the valley would certainly find it difficult to contest a case that too in regard to the landed property in the courts at Kashmir, more particularly in the areas far away from city. 9. All the averments made in the petition have been supported by an affidavit, which have not been rebutted by the counsel for the respondents, who chose to argue the matter, despite having got ample opportunity to file reply to the same after having caused appearance on 22.7.2016. 10. The apprehension in the mind of the petitioner has some sound basis in as much as, the petitioner appears to have been threatened of physical elimination by the private respondents. Even the counsel appearing on his behalf appears to have returned the brief to him. 10. The apprehension in the mind of the petitioner has some sound basis in as much as, the petitioner appears to have been threatened of physical elimination by the private respondents. Even the counsel appearing on his behalf appears to have returned the brief to him. In such a situation, the petitioner cannot be expected to follow his case in the court at Handwara fearlessly. Even the witnesses, he might like to examine in support of his case, may be reluctant to appear to depose in the matter. The remedy available to the petitioner might, in these circumstances, be rendered illusory. 11. While, it may not be convenient for the respondents to contest the case at Jammu, yet, looking to the degree of difficulty of the petitioner, the same deserves precedence over inconvenience. 12. For the reasons mentioned above, this petition is allowed. The civil suit titled "Mohan Lal Kant & Anr. v. Mohd. Ramzan Bhat and Ors.", pending before the learned Munsiff, Handwara, shall stand transferred to the court of learned Munsiff, Jammu, who shall proceed in the matter in accordance with the law. 13. Parties to appear before the transferee court at Jammu on 1st May, 2017. Disposed of accordingly. Petition Allowed.