1. Petition for transfer of succession and miscellaneous proceedings from one state to another based on travel difficulty and financial hardship. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1997 Supreme(SC) 87
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M Ahmadi, C.J.I., S.P.Bharucha, J.
Shiv Kumar Sharma
Versus
Union Of India
Case No. : 10396 of 1995
Date of Decision : 1/21/97
Transfer of proceedings based on travel hardship may be denied if the opposing party agrees to bear the travel and stay expenses, as this mitigates the financial burden on the petitioner.
Headnote:(A) Transfer of Proceedings - Hardship of a party in traveling to the court where the matter is pending - If the opposing party agrees to bear the expenditure for travel and stay, the justification for transferring the matter to another jurisdiction is diminished. (Para 1)
(B) Legal Representation - Financial assistance for engaging counsel - A party is at liberty to engage counsel at the place where the suit is pending and may apply to the trial court for financial assistance for this purpose. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
A petition was filed for the transfer of a succession application and a miscellaneous application from a court in one state to a court in another state. The petitioner, a woman, contended that she was unable to travel due to the distance and the associated expenditure. The respondents agreed to bear the costs of her travel and stay whenever she attended the court.
Findings of Court:
The court found that there was no justification for transferring the matter since the respondents agreed to pay a specified amount in advance for each occasion the petitioner attended the court. The court further noted that the petitioner could seek financial assistance from the trial court for engaging legal counsel.
Issues: Whether the financial and physical hardship of a female petitioner justifies the transfer of civil proceedings to her home state when the opposing party offers to cover travel and stay expenses.
Ratio Decidendi: When the opposing party agrees to mitigate the financial burden of travel and accommodation, the grounds for transfer based on hardship are insufficient to warrant moving the proceedings to a different jurisdiction.
Result: The transfer petition is accordingly disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner seeks transfer due to travel constraints and lack of local counsel; respondents offer to cover travel expenses. (Para 1 , 2 )
3. Travel and legal representation costs can be mitigated through financial assistance from the opposing party or applications to the trial court. (Para 1 , 2 )
4. Transfer of proceedings is not warranted if travel and legal costs can be adequately addressed through financial support from the opposing party. (Para 1 , 2 )
5. Transfer petition dismissed; respondents directed to pay travel expenses; trial court directed to dispose of the matter expeditiously. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
6. Does financial hardship and travel difficulty automatically justify the transfer of legal proceedings?
No, if the opposing party agrees to bear the travel and stay expenses, the court may find no justification for transferring the matter. (Para 1 )
7. What remedy is available to a party unable to afford local counsel in a distant court?
The party may file an application for financial assistance for engaging counsel in the court where the proceedings are pending. (Para 2 )
8. Can a court order the opposing party to pay travel expenses in advance to avoid transferring a case?
Yes, the court can direct the opposing party to pay travel and stay expenses in advance to facilitate the petitioner's attendance in court. (Para 1 )
(1) THE petitioner has filed this petition for transfer of proceedings, viz., Succession Application No. 43 of 1995 along with Miscellaneous Application No. 23 of 1996 titled Ramajor Shitla Prasad Ojha v. Shiv Kumari Devendra Ojha pending in the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Valsad, Gujarat to the competent court of Civil Judge at Sadar, District Pratapgarh in Uttar Pradesh. We had adjourned the matter by our order dated 9/12/1996 to find out whether the suit was still pending or stood disposed of. It is reported that the matter is still pending and the Civil Judge, Senior Division is yet to take up the matter. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner being a lady is unable to travel from Uttar Pradesh to Valsad in Gujarat and it is really a great difficulty for her to meet the expenditure in that behalf. Shri Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has agreed to bear the expenditure for her travel and stay whenever she attends court. Under the circumstances, we do not find that there is any justification for transferring the matter to Pratapgarh, U.P. Whenever the petitioner goes to the court, the respondents would pay Rs. 750.00(Rupees seven hundred and fifty only) on each occasion to the petitioner and the amount would be paid to her in advance. The petitioner would intimate the Civil Judge, Senior Division who would direct the respondents to pay the amount to the petitioner.
(2) IT is next contended that the petitioner had to engage her counsel from Surat since no advocate would be available at Valsad where the suit is pending. We think that the apprehension of the petitioner is not correct. The petitioner is at liberty to engage counsel at Valsad and the counsel would give his best to the petitioner in defending her case. If the petitioner requires any financial assistance from the respondents, it would be open to her to file an application in the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Valsad for this purpose and the same would be ordered by the Civil Judge, The learned Civil Judge is directed to dispose of the application for restoration immediately and would simultaneously take up the main matter and dispose of the same expeditiously.
(3) THE transfer petition is accordingly disposed of.
