1. Petition for transfer of succession and miscellaneous proceedings between states based on travel difficulty and financial hardship. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1997 Supreme(SC) 35
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.T.Nanavati : K.Ramaswamy
Shiv Kumari Devenndra Ojha
Versus
Ramajor Shitla Prasad Ojha
Case No. : 281 of 1996
Date of Decision : 1/13/97
Advocates Appeared: Madan Asha Jain : Upadhyay R.D.
In transfer petitions, if the respondent agrees to bear the travel and stay expenses of the petitioner to mitigate financial hardship, the court may refuse the transfer of proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Transfer of Proceedings - Hardship of a female party in traveling for court proceedings - Where the respondent agrees to bear the expenditure for travel and stay of the petitioner, the justification for transferring the matter to the petitioner's home state is diminished. (Para 1)
(B) Legal Representation - Financial assistance for engaging counsel - If a party requires financial assistance to engage counsel in the court where the matter is pending, they may apply to the trial court for such assistance. (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 another. The petitioner, being a woman, claimed inability to travel and financial hardship. The respondent offered to cover the travel and stay expenses of the petitioner whenever she attends court.
Findings of Court:
The court found no justification for transferring the proceedings given the respondent's willingness to pay for travel and stay. It directed the respondent to pay a specified amount in advance for each visit. Regarding legal representation, the court held that the petitioner could seek financial assistance from the trial court if required.
Issues: Whether the proceedings should be transferred to another state on the grounds of the petitioner's gender and financial inability to travel.
Ratio Decidendi: The convenience of the parties is a key factor in transfer petitions; however, when the opposing party agrees to mitigate the financial hardship of travel, the grounds for transfer are weakened. Financial constraints regarding legal representation can be addressed through an application to the trial court.
Result: The transfer petition is accordingly disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner contends inability to travel and lack of local counsel; respondents offer to bear travel and stay expenses. (Para 1 , 2 )
3. Travel hardship can be mitigated by opposing party's payment; local counsel is available at the current venue. (Para 1 , 2 )
4. Transfer of proceedings is not warranted if travel and legal representation costs can be addressed via financial assistance. (Para 1 , 2 )
5. Transfer petition disposed of; respondents ordered to pay travel expenses; trial court directed to expedite the main matter. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
6. Does travel hardship alone justify the transfer of civil proceedings?
Not necessarily; if the opposing party agrees to bear the travel and stay expenses of the petitioner, the court may find no justification for transferring the matter. (Para 1 )
7. What remedy is available if a party cannot afford local counsel at the venue of the suit?
The party may file an application for financial assistance before the trial court to engage local counsel. (Para 2 )
8. What is the court's direction regarding the disposal of the main suit following a transfer petition's disposal?
The trial court is directed to dispose of any restoration applications immediately and resolve the main matter expeditiously. (Para 2 )
(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.
