Skip to content


Khatija Bibi Vs. Taruk Chunder Dutt - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1883)ILR9Cal980
AppellantKhatija Bibi
RespondentTaruk Chunder Dutt
Excerpt:
transfer of case - civil procedure code (act xiv of 1882), section 23--practice--ground for transfer. - .....allows; and section 23 is only intended, as we consider to provide for those cases, where, on the ground of expense or convenience, or some other good reason, the court thinks that the place of trial ought to be changed.3. if for instance, in this case, the defendant could have shown us that great expense could have been saved, or that the balance of convenience was strongly in favour of the case being tried at furridpore, we might have thought it right to grant his application. but looking at the allegations on both sides, we think it very difficult to say where the balance of convenience lies.4. the plaintiff, on the one hand, says that, though a great part of the property in suit is in furridpore, some of it is in dacca; that the defendant himself lives at dacca, and carries on.....
Judgment:

Richard Garth, C.J.

1. We see no sufficient ground for transferring this suit from the Dacca Court to that of Furridpore.

2. Prim facie, the plaintiff as the arbiter litis has a right to bring his suit in any Court which the law allows; and Section 23 is only intended, as we consider to provide for those cases, where, on the ground of expense or convenience, or some other good reason, the Court thinks that the place of trial ought to be changed.

3. If for instance, in this case, the defendant could have shown us that great expense could have been saved, or that the balance of convenience was strongly in favour of the case being tried at Furridpore, we might have thought it right to grant his application. But looking at the allegations on both sides, we think it very difficult to say where the balance of convenience lies.

4. The plaintiff, on the one hand, says that, though a great part of the property in suit is in Furridpore, some of it is in Dacca; that the defendant himself lives at Dacca, and carries on business there; and that all the witnesses who are likely to be summoned in the cause reside at Dacca.

5. The defendant, on the other hand, says that the bulk of the property in suit is situated in Furridpore; that some of the persons who are co-sharers with him in the ijara, and who ought, therefore, to have been made parties to the suit, reside at Furridpore; and that it would be very inconvenient to bring the necessary evidence relating to the estate to Dacca.

6. It would seem from those counter allegations that, notwithstanding all the defendant says, the balance of convenience may be in favour of the case being tried at Dacca. It certainly does not follow that, because the bulk of the land in suit may be at Furridpore, and that some of the co-sharers may live there, the balance, either of convenience or of expense, is in favour of trying the case there.

7. Parties who desire to have a case transferred from one forum to another ought clearly to explain to the Court by petition and affidavit what is the nature of the claim and defence, and what the issues are; they should state what evidence will be required, and then satisfy the Court that, either on the ground of expense or convenience or otherwise, the place of trial ought to be changed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //