Point of law: In matters relating to transfer of a case from one district to another, it is to be noticed that if the case is pending before a Court which is within the specified area of Oudh only in respect of such cases does this Court exercises the powers of transfer under Section 24 C.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant petition for transfer has been moved under Section 24 C.P.C. with the prayer that the Original Suit bearing No. 140 of 2013 pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Tilhar, District Shahjahanpur be transferred from the said District to the appropriate Court in District Lucknow.

2. The learned counsel for the parties have argued the matter at length dwelling into the merits of the transfer application.

3. In brief the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the private respondents have instituted a suit for cancellation of a will before the Civil Judge Junior Division, Tilhar, District Sahjahanpur wherein the present petitioner is the defendant. It is also urged that while contesting the proceedings at Tilhar, an unfortunate incident occurred which has the effect of obstructing the course of justice, as an attempt was made by unknown persons but presumably at the behest of the respondent threatening the petitioner to stop pursuing the case.

4. It has also been pointed out that a supplementary affidavit has been filed by the counsel who had gone to argue the case and had received the threat.

5. It is also urged that after the incident occurred, the application moved by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. was dismissed, however, the petitioner assailed the matter before the District Judge at Shahjahanpur which was allowed and the matter was sent back to the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Tilhar. It is also urged that the petitioner have difficulty in contesting the proceedings at Tilhar.

6. Though, the learned counsel for the respondents has refuted the aforesaid contentions and has stated that the allegations are false and have been deliberately incorporated to seek a transfer but apart from controverting the contentions on merit, Sri G.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondent has raised an objection regarding the maintainability of this transfer petition at Lucknow.

7. It is urged that the proceedings of which transfer is sought is pending before the Civil Judge, Tilhar, District Shahjahanpur which is outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, inasmuch as, it is beyond the limits of Oudh, hence, the petition for transfer will not be maintainable before this Court at Luckow.

8. A specific query was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner to indicate as to how the instant petition is maintainable at Lucknow and in response Sri Shantanu Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the suit is in respect of cancellation of a Will which is executed and registered at Lucknow. It is also submitted that the parties are residents of Lucknow and thus part of cause of action arises at Lucknow.

9. He further relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sri Nasiruddin Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunual reported in (1975) 2 SCC 671 and placed reliance on paragraph 38 to submit that in civil cases where even part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of Oudh then this Court would have jurisdiction and in this case since the the Will in question was executed and registered at Lucknow, of which the cancellation has been sought, therefore, part of cause of action arises at Lucknow, hence, this Court has ample jurisdiction to try the instant transfer petition which emanates from the said suit.

10. It is further submitted by Sri Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner that the testator was also a resident of Lucknow and upon her death, the will also became effective at Lucknow as it was also registered with the Sub Registrar at Lucknow, hence, in a suit for cancellation of a Will as in this case, the whole cause of action has accrued at Lucknow.

11. The Court has heard Sri Shantanu Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondent and has also perused the material on record.

12. Since the question of maintainability has been raised, therefore, the Court will firs