( 1 ) THESE two applications are at the instance of the wife and daughter of the respondent herein seeking transfer of os No. 330 of 1991 and OS No. 70 of 1997 respectively from the files of the I Additional district Munsif and Sub-Court, Tanuku in west Godavari District the competent Courts at Rajahmundry.

( 2 ) THE petitioners claim to be the residents of Katheru, Rajahmundry. The suit in OS No. 330 of 1991 was filed by the respondent seeking a declaration that the marriage between the respondent and the petitioner No. 1 is void since he is a christian and the wife is a Hindu and the marriage was performed as per Hindu rites and not as per the Special Marriage act. It appears that the respondent had already obtained divorce on the ground of desertion. According to the petitioner No. 1, the sole intention of the respondent is to obtain a declaration that the petitioner No. 2 is an illegitimate daughter. The petitioner no. 2 attained majority on 27-4-2000.

( 3 ) THE suit in OS No. 70 of 1997 is filed seeking partition of schedule properties by the petitioner No. 2, the daughter, claiming 1/4th share.

( 4 ) IN the applications, the petitioners apprehend that they may not prosecute the cases without any fear at Tanuku as the respondent is an influential person belonging to Mortha village of West Godavari District and for going to Tanuku. thev have to necessarily pass through Mortha. The respondent is threatening them with dire consequences by his henchmen. Further, two brothers-in-law of the respondent i. e. , the brothers of his second wife, are practising lawyers at Tanuku Bar. Further, the petitioners are poor and are looked after by the grand parents at Katheru village.

( 5 ) DENYING all these allegations through the counter-affidavit, the respondent contended that the father of the petitioner no. 1 is an influential person and rich. Further the petitioners are only trying to protract the litigation and though the trial of the suit has already commenced on 27-1-2000, it is only at the stage of cross- examination of PW2, that these applications are filed.

( 6 ) FROM the above background and upon hearing both the Counsel, it is evident that both the suits are now pending at Tanuku and the petitioners are residing at Katheru nearer to Rajahmundry. The respondent had already obtained divorce and he is married again. Admittedly, two brothers-in- law from the side of his second wife are practising lawyers at Tanuku Bar, though they are not the Counsel engaged by the respondent in these cases. The petitioner no. l is the wife and the other petitioner is the daughter, who recently attained majority. Apart from these reasons, the petitioners expressed apprehensions in view of certain threats issued by the respondent s men. Of course, these allegations are denied by the respondent and much stress is laid on the fact that the suit is already part heard.

( 7 ) IN Subramaniam Swamy v. Ramakrishna Hegde, AIR 1990 SC 113, considering the scope of the power of transfer under Section 25 of CPC the supreme Court held:"the question of expediency would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case but the paramount consideration for the exercise of power must be to meet the ends of justice. . . . the paramount consideration must be to see that justice according to law is done; if for achieving that objective the transfer of the case is imperative, there should be no hesitation to transfer the case even if it is likely to cause some inconvenience to the plaintiff. "

( 8 ) IN Shiv Kumari Devendra Ojha v. Ramajor Shitla Prasad Ojha, AIR 1997 sc 1036, it was held:"transfer of succession application - other party agreeing to bear expenditure of travel and stay of petitioner whenever she attends Court - under circumstances, transfer of matter not necessary. "

( 9 ) IN this backdrop of principles laid down and the scope of provisions under section 24 CPC ultimately, each case has to be considered from its own surrounding circumsta