Sudhir Tukaram Sathe vs Nilkanth Dinkar Chandgude And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 690 Bom

                                             1                        WP-3026.16


                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,




                                                                             
                            BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                           WRIT PETITION NO. 3026 OF 2016




                                                     
     Sudhir s/o Tukaram Sathe
     Age: 48 years, Occu. Business now NIL,
     R/o. Krushna Nagar, Bunglow No.16,
     Mokase Vasti, Near Kadambari Fase No.1,




                                                    
     Pipe Line Road, Savedi, Ahmednagar,
     District : Ahmednagar                              ... PETITIONER

              Versus




                                        
     1]       Nilkanth s/o Dinkar Chandgude
              Age: 49 years, Occu. Agril.,
              R/o Chasnali, Tq. Kopargaon,
                             
              District: Ahmednagar

     2]       The General Manager,
                            
              Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,
              Indian Oil Bhawan, B.K.C.,
              Plot No. C-33, G-Block, Bandra Kurla
              Sankul, Bandra East, Mumbai-51            ... RESPONDENTS
      


                                      .....
   



     Mr. D. A. Bide, Advocate for petitioner
     Mr. R. R. Karpe, Advocate for respondent No.1
                                      .....





                                   CORAM :       SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.

                                    DATE :       17th MARCH, 2016





     ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with

consent of learned advocates for the parties.

2 WP-3026.16

2. The petitioner purports to have been aggrieved by an order

refusing transfer of proceedings bearing Special Civil Suit No. 27 of

2015 pending in the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division,

Kopargaon for recovery of arrears of rent and for cancellation of

transaction, to court at Ahmednagar.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that petitioner is

100% physically handicapped and it is difficult for him to move.

Primarily, his family consists of wife and three children. Children

are taking education in Ahmednagar. Petitioner is residing along

with wife at Ahmednagar and has no other income save and except

meager pension he receives as ex-serviceman. He submits that

under a scheme, a petrol pump had been allotted to the petitioner

in Kopargaon taluka. With respect to the same, he had entered into

a transaction with the present respondents, however it culminated

into certain legal proceedings.

4. Having regard to aforesaid, particularly to that petitioner is

not in a position to attend the proceedings at Kopargaon, he had

moved Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 206 of 2015 before the

Principal District Judge, Ahmednagar for transfer of Special Civil

Suit No. 27 of 2015 from Kopargaon to Ahmednagar court. Said

application has been rejected and as such, he is before this court.

3 WP-3026.16

5. Learned counsel submits that, the court had been in error in

not taking into relevant aspects, particularly that the petitioner is

100% disabled and there are certain other hurdles in the way of

the petitioner and thus causing inconvenience for him to attend the

proceedings at Kopargaon. He therefore urges that the impugned

order be set aside and his application be granted.

6. Mr. Karpe, learned counsel appearing for other side, however

refers to that various legal proceedings had been pending between

the parties. The proceedings at Pune have been attended to by the

petitioner, so also two proceedings at Aurangabad. He therefore

submits that petitioner cannot be said to have been absolutely

disabled or prevented by the circumstances which have been

stated. Under the circumstances, he submits that application has

been moved to delay the proceedings and to avoid the decision in

favour of the plaintiff in the suit at Kopargaon. He further points

out that the court has taken into account relevant aspects in the

matter that it is not necessary for the petitioner to visit Kopargaon

and that his evidence can be brought on record by appointing court

commissioner. He submits that the court while passing order has

taken into account various aspects in its discretion and as such

impugned order does not deserve to be interfered with under the

discretionary powers of this court.

4 WP-3026.16

7. Perusal of impugned order shows that the court has

considered the submissions on either side and had also referred to

various aspects and judgments particularly in Jitendra Sing vs.

Bhanu Kumari and others reported in 2009(3) Mh.L.J., 77 referring to

probable grounds for transfer of proceedings. The court in the

present situation has considered that having regard to the

ante-mortem stage and that difficulties which have been put forth

can be taken care of in the way suggested under the impugned

order. Thus the court has refused exercise of discretion in favour of

the petitioner.

8. Having regard to aforesaid and that the situation can be

taken care of in the manner suggested by the court and having

regard to ante-mortem stage, I do not think it would be a case to

give indulgence to the petitioner.

9. Writ petition, as such, is being not entertained and stands

dismissed. Rule discharged.

10. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner earnestly

requests that his client may be posed with threats and entertains

reasonable apprehension that he may not be able to conduct the

proceedings at Kopargaon independently, and having regard to the

same, he seeks liberty to make application to the District Court at

5 WP-3026.16

Ahmednagar for transfer of the proceedings. If the petitioner is so

advised he may make such application and the same can be dealt

with by the court in accordance with facts and law and on its own

merits.

( SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J. )

sms