The main legal point established in the judgment is that allegations of intimidation and hostile treatment must be supported by evidence to warrant the transfer of a case. The court also considered the hardship it would cause for local witnesses if the case was transferred.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri S.M. Singh Royekwar, Advocate assisted by Sri Saksham Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Sri Akshat Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party Nos. 7 to 9 namely Radhey Shyam Khanna, Kanishk Khanna and Manas Raj, respectively, in TRANSFER APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. 50 of 2023 (in short "T.A.C. No. 50 of 2023") and opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 namely Manas Raj, Kanishk Khanna and Radhey Shyam Khanna, respectively, in TRANSFER APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. 54 of 2023 (in short "T.A.C. No. 54 of 2023") as also Sri Ram Prasad Dwivedi, Advocate, who put in appearance on behalf of opposite party Nos. 2 to 6 namely Smt. Shashi Kala, Dr. Onkar Singh, Devesh Ranjan Srivastava, Amit Kumar Srivastava and Avneesh Kumar Srivastava, respectively, in T.A.C. No. 50 of 2023 and opposite party No. 1 namely Devesh Ranjan Srivastava in T.A.C. No. 54 of 2023.

2. Notice to the opposite party No. 1 namely Smt. Pushpa Lata in T.A.C. No. 50 of 2023 is hereby dispensed with, as Sri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, Advocate and Sri Askhat Kumar, Advocate are representing the contesting opposite parties.

3. T.A.C. No. 50 of 2023 has been filed by the applicant/Sukesh Ranjan Srivastava under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short "CPC") regarding transfer of Regular Suit No. 1291 of 2021 (Sukesh Ranjan Srivastava vs. Smt. Pushpa Lata and others), which is pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/FTC, Bahraich, to any competent Court of nearby district preferably to District Balrampur.

4. It would be apt to clarify here that Regular Suit No. 1291 of 2021 was instituted by the applicant for cancellation of judgment and decree dated 28.04.2011 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bahraich in Suit No. 494 of 2006 (Smt. Kanak Lata vs. Satya Prakash and others).

5. T.A.C. No. 54 of 2023 has been preferred by the applicant seeking transfer of a Suit No. 1222/2021 (Sukesh Ranjan Srivastava vs. Devesh Ranjan Srivastava and others) filed by him seeking a decree of permanent injunction to any competent Court of nearby district preferably to District Balrampur, which is pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/FTC, Bahraich.

6. For disposal of both the cases, indicated above, the fact(s) and ground(s) seeking transfer of the case(s) from District Bahraich to nearby district preferably to District Balrampur are being considered from the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of T.A.C. No. 50 of 2023 particularly the averments made in paras 11 to 23, the averments made in paras 10 to 22 of the affidavit filed in support of T.A.C. No. 54 of 2023 are same. The relevant paras on reproduction are as under:-

"11. That opp. party no. 7 is a practicing Advocate in District Court at Bahraich. The said Opp. Party No. 7, with the help of other local members of the Bar, always tried to intimidate and prevent the deponent from doing pairavi of the case.

12. That the opp. party no.7 always created scene whenever the case was put up in the Court for hearing. Each time, he came to attend the proceedings accompanied with scores of other members of the Bar. The proceedings were always conducted in a hostile atmosphere and they hardly were smooth and fair for the applicant.

13. That even the local counsel for the applicant faces hostile atmosphere in the local Bar only because of the case in question. Only on much persuasion and request on behalf of the applicant through his pairokar, the said Counsel manages to conduct the proceedings in the face of such hostile atmosphere.

14. That it so happened that on 18.01.2023, the opp. party no. 7 to 9 alongwith his other accomplices committed criminal trespass into the suit property where the pairokar stays. Accompanied with a large number of unknown persons, on the gun point, they threatened the said pairokar to vacate the premises and stop doing pairavi of the case in question. The pairokar immediately informed the local Police over phone and in writing also