( 1 ) THIS is claimant's application under Sec. 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure for transfer of Misc. Judicial Case No. 11 of 1989 (arising out of Claim Case No. 6 of 1984 which was dismissed in default on 20-1-1989) pending before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manila to any other Claims Tribunal of competent jurisdiction, preferably to Jabalpur.

( 2 ) THE claimant Smt. Sudha Sharma filed a claim petition against Ramnaresh Jaiswal and Dr. M. L. Vishwakarma before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandla. It is alleged that her husband late Ashok Kumar Sharma met with an accident and succumbed to the injuries. The vehicle in question belonged to non-applicant. The alleged accident had taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of Mandla Accident Claims Tribunal, therefore, petition for compensation was filed at Mandla.

( 3 ) THE applicant is a resident of Jabalpur. She any how passed her LL. B. Examination and got herself enrolled as an Advocate recently. Her husband's death put her in a deplorable condition.

( 4 ) DURING the pendency of this transfer petition, the Claim Petition (No. 6 of 1984) was dismissed in default and, therefore, an application was made for restoration of the said claim petition vide Misc. Judicial Case No. 11 of 1989 and accordingly the transfer petition was amended stating that Misc. Judicial Case No. 11 of 1989 be transferred to any other Court, Tribunal preferably at Jabalpur.

( 5 ) THE grounds for transfer taken by the applicant are about the convenience of the parties, inasmuch as no legal practitioner at Mandla is available to take up her case and further Mandla is not convenient to her for the trial of the case.

( 6 ) BESIDES the above grounds i. e. convenience of the parties etc. , reckless wild allegations were made against the Presiding Judge of the Tribunal for transfer (but later on the same were withdrawn as stated hereinbelow ).

( 7 ) AS far as the allegations made against the Presiding Judge of the Tribunal are concerned, it appears that due to earnest persuasion of Shri Fakhruddin, learned Counsel for the applicant, good sense prevailed upon the applicant, who by filing an application withdrew all the allegations and confined her case mainly to the convenience of the parties. The application so made for withdrawal of the allegations against the Presiding Judge was taken on record on 14-8-89. Shri Trivedi, learned Counsel appearing for the non-applicants, however, took time to file reply of all the applications but from the next date the command of the case was taken over by senior counsel Shri P. S. Gothalwal on behalf of the non-applicants and he filed reply of all the applications presented by the applicant.

( 8 ) RESISTING the application for transfer, Shri Gothalwal submitted that no case for transfer is made out, even on the consideration of the convenience of the parties concerned. It is contended that the non-applicants are residents of Nainpur from where I the distance of Mandla is only 50 kilometers whereas distance of Jabalpur from Nainpur by road is 150 kilometers and by rail is 100 kilometers and thus transfer of the petition to Jabalpur would cause inconvenience to the non-applicants. More so, the witnesses are also residents of Nainpur, Banni Bazar, Mandla etc.

( 9 ) BEFORE resolving the controversy at issue, it must be pointed out that a foremost duty casts upon the counsel concerned while drafting and making allegations in the transfer petition against the Judge concerned with utmost care and caution, particularly in making wild allegations against the Presiding Judge. But, it appears that now-a-days it has become common feature to make allegations against the Court , Presiding Judge. The counsel should realise that they are also officers of the Court. Introducing fanciful and imaginary allegations as grounds for transfer and barbouring apprehension such grounds that fair and impartial justice would not be done should always be deprecated.

( 10