JUDGMENT :

SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.

1. The present application under Clause 13 of the Letters Patent has been preferred praying for transfer of the proceedings in Title Suit No.125 of 1988 pending before the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), 1st Court, Katwa to this Hon’ble Court by exercising of the superintending power as conferred under Clause 13 of the Letters Patent.

2. The petitioners’ predecessor filed Title Suit No.125 of 1988 praying for eviction of trespassers and recovery of possession against the defendants/opposite parties herein. In the said suit written statement has been filed.

3. The prayer for transfer in the present application has been made principally on the ground that the suit before the Trial Court is pending for last 24 years. Several civil revisions were preferred by the parties before the High Court, one of them being for expeditious disposal of the Title Suit. But even then, the suit could not be disposed of.

4. The next ground for transfer is based on convenience as the plaintiff/petitioner no.1 is a widow aged about 73 years old and stays in Kolkata. The 2^nd plaintiff/petitioner resides permanently in USA and the 3^rd plaintiff/petitioner resides permanently in Agra; the 4th plaintiff/petitioner stays in Kolkata and is a medical practitioner, aged about 62 years. The petitioners also apprehend that no justice will be done in their case as the environment at Katwa is hostile towards them and thus, preferred the present application.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments:

a) 1926 SCC OnLine Cal 246 (Brojo Gopal Naik vs. Lakshmimoni Dassi & Ors.);

b) 1949 SCC OnLine Cal 155 (Baburam Agarwalla vs. Jamunadas Ramji & Co.) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:

“The words “purposes of justice” in cl. 13 of the Letters Patent, 1865, are advisedly general and wide so as not to fetter the discretion of the court in any way. To attempt to define these words would be to defeat the amplitude of the provision.

Personal violence to a litigant at a particular court or at a particular place of threat of such violence is a relevant consideration in exercising court’s powers under cl. 13 of the Letters Patent.

Personal feeling or private emotion or individual temperament as such of a litigant is not a proper consideration for transfer of a suit under cl. 13 of the Letters Patent. It is only when there is a public sentiment in the locality in which the court is situated against the litigant then the resultant “feeling” of such a litigant produced by such public sentiment may be a ground for transfer.

Mohur Sing v. Ghuriba, (1870) 6 B.L.R. 495, and In Re Kumar Rupendra Deb Ralkut v. Ashrumati Debi, (1949) 53 C.W.N. 770, discussed and explained.

Balance of convenience is a question of fact. It is neither the convenience of the plaintiff alone nor of the defendant alone, but the balance of convenience of both. In determining the balance of convenience for the trial of a suit the court has to take into consideration:-

(i) The convenience or inconvenience of the plaintiff and the right of the plaintiff to choose his own forum;

(ii) the convenience or inconvenience of the defendant:

(iii) the convenience or inconvenience of the witnesses required for a proper trial of the suit,

(iv) the convenience or inconvenience of a particular place of trial, having regard to the nature of evidence on the main points involved in suit and also having regard to the doctrine of forum conveniens; and

(v) nature of the issues in the suit”

c) 1951 SCC OnLine Cal 170 (Kalidas Roy & Ors. Vs. University of Calcutta & Ors.).

6. The defendants/opposite parties have filed affidavit-in-opposition and have denied the case of the plaintiffs/petitioners herein. The specific case of the defendants/opposite parties against the prayer for transfer is that the delay in disposal of the suit is totally due to the conduct of the plaintiffs/petitioners and neither the Court nor the defendants/opposite parties are responsible for su