Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 491 (JK)

Surinder Kumar Kotwal v. Central Bank of India

2018-07-10

SANJEEV KUMAR

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. This is an application filed by the petitioner seeking transfer of a civil suit titled “Surinder Kumar Kotwal vs Central Bank of India and others” pending in the Court of Additional District Judge Srinagar to any other Court of competent jurisdiction at Jammu. The transfer of afore titled suit has been sought on the ground that in view of the prevailing law and order situation in the Valley coupled with the fact that the petitioner has now permanently shifted to Jammu, it would be highly inconvenient for him to prosecute his suit in any Court in the Valley. It is stated that the petitioner has filed the afore titled suit for eviction as also for recovery of damages for use and occupation charges against the respondents-Bank which is pending adjudication in the Court of Additional District Judge Srinagar. The afore titled suit was filed on 4th of August 2017. It is also pleaded in the application that during the pendency of the aforetitled suit, the respondents have handed over the keys of the suit premises to the trial Court and have, thus, vacated the premises. It is, thus, submitted that the suit with regard to relief of eviction has been settled and shall only proceed for recovery of compensation for wwrongful use and occupation of the premises in question. It is submitted that due to turmoil in the valley, the petitioner migrated in the year 1999 and had been visiting Srinagar occasionally to take care of his property. However, due to unprecedented floods in the year 2014, he has permanently shifted to Jammu and thereafter he has not been able to go to Srinagar for any purpose. 2. On the aforesaid pleas, the petitioner has sought transfer of the suit afore titled. 3. The application for transfer of aforesaid suit has been opposed by the respondents. They have filed their objections in which it is pleaded that the petitioner is ordinarily a resident of Srinagar and therefore, can very well prosecute the suit there. It is submitted that the plea of inconvenience projected by the petitioner is not substantiated by any material. 3. The application for transfer of aforesaid suit has been opposed by the respondents. They have filed their objections in which it is pleaded that the petitioner is ordinarily a resident of Srinagar and therefore, can very well prosecute the suit there. It is submitted that the plea of inconvenience projected by the petitioner is not substantiated by any material. It is also claimed that in case the suit is transferred from Srinagar to Jammu, the respondents would be put to lot of inconvenience as the relevant witnesses, who would be deposing in favour of the respondents, are all available in Srinagar and it would be difficult for the respondents to bring them to Jammu for examination. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. It is seen that in terms of Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, an absolute discretion has been given to High Court or the District Court as the case may be to transfer any suit, appeal or other proceedings pending before it or any Courts subordinate to it. The language of Section 24 is very wide and there is no restriction on the High Court in exercising the power of transfer. There could be numerous reasons which may impel the Court to transfer a case from one Court to another and the same can only be illustrative and not the exhaustive. The convenience of the parties which would in turn result in expeditious disposal of the case is one such ground on which this discretion can be exercised. In this backdrop, the case in hand is considered. It is found that the petitioner is 65 years old. He instituted the aforetitled suit in the Court at Srinagar which had the jurisdiction to try it. It was filed on 4th August 2017 and the same is pending adjudication. 6. In view of the prevailing law and order situation and also because of his migration to Jammu, the petitioner is not finding it convenient to contest the suit at Srinagar. He has claimed that he has now permanently shifted to Jammu which claim of the petitioner has not been refuted by the respondents. The respondents have, however, pleaded their inconvenience if the case is transferred to Jammu. He has claimed that he has now permanently shifted to Jammu which claim of the petitioner has not been refuted by the respondents. The respondents have, however, pleaded their inconvenience if the case is transferred to Jammu. In these circumstances, a duty is cast upon this Court to ensure that by transfer of the case from one Court to another, no party is put to inconvenience. As already taken note of, the petitioner would certainly be put to discomfiture to contest the suit in Srinagar. The respondent is a Bank which has its network of branches and offices throughout the country including Jammu. It has the necessary infrastructure and legal cell to contest its cases at any place with ease. That being so, I am not in agreement with the contention of learned counsel for the respondents that if the suit is transferred from Srinagar to Jammu, they would be put to grave inconvenience, rather it would be for the convenience of both the parties to pursue or contest the suit in Jammu where, apart from other things, the overall environment is cordial and conducive. 7. The transfer of afore titled suit from Sriangar to Jammu, in my opinion, would also ensure expeditious disposal. Accordingly, I am inclined to allow this application and direct transfer of suit afore titled from the Court of Additional District Judge Srinagar to the Court of Principal District Judge Jammu, who may either try the same himself or assign it to some other Court of competent jurisdiction. Ordered accordingly. 8. The Court of Additional District Judge, Srinagar shall transmit the record of afore titled suit to the Court of Principal District Judge Jammu forthwith. 9. Disposed of as above.