Orissa High Court
Swarnaprava Dash & Another vs Pranab Kumar Satapathy on 11 November, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
TRP(C) No.375 of 2025
(An application under Section 24 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908)
Swarnaprava Dash & another ....... Petitioners
-Versus-
Pranab Kumar Satapathy
and others ....... Opp. Parties
For Petitioners : Mr. Tanmay Mishra,
Advocate
For Opp. Parties : None
----------------------------
CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing and Judgment: 11.11.2025
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.K. Mishra, J.
1. This Transfer Petition has been preferred by the
Petitioners, who are the Plaintiffs in Civil Suit No.414 of 2023,
for transfer of proceeding in the said Suit from the Court of
learned 2nd Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Puri to
the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Bhubaneswar on the ground that both the Petitioners are
residing in Bhubaneswar, having old age ailments.
2. A further ground has been urged in the transfer
petition that the Opposite Party Nos.1 to 5, who are the
defendants in the said suit, are residing in Sakhigopal. The
distance from Sakhigopal to Puri is around 20 KMs whereas,
the distance from Sakhigopal to Bhubaneswar is around 40
KMs. If the suit is transferred to Bhubaneswar, they will have
to travel extra 20 Kms only.
3. To substantiate his submission, learned Counsel
for the Petitioners relies on the judgment of the Supreme
Court reported in (2008) 3 SCC 659 (Kulwinder Kaur Alias
Kulwinder Gurcharan Singh Vs. Kandi Friends Education
Trust). Paragraph No.23 of the said judgment, being relevant,
is reproduced below:
"23. Reading Sections 24 and 25 of the Code together
and keeping in view various judicial pronouncements,
certain broad propositions as to what may constitute
a ground for transfer have been laid down by courts.
They are balance of convenience or inconvenience to
the plaintiff or the defendant or witnesses;
convenience or inconvenience of a particular place of
trial having regard to the nature of evidence on the
points involved in the suit; issues raised by the
parties; reasonable apprehension in the mind of the
litigant that he might not get justice in the court in
which the suit is pending; important questions of law
involved or a considerable section of public interested
in the litigation; "interest of justice" demanding for
transfer of suit, appeal or other proceeding, etc. Above
are some of the instances which are germane in
considering the question of transfer of a suit, appeal
or other proceeding. They are, however, illustrative in
nature and by no means be treated as exhaustive. If
on the above or other relevant considerations, the
court feels that the plaintiff or the defendant is not
likely to have a "fair trial" in the court from which he
seeks to transfer a case, it is not only the power, but
the duty of the court to make such order."
4. As is ascertained from the Plaint in Civil Suit
No.414 of 2023, as at Annexure-1, the following prayers have
been made:
"a) Preliminary decree for partition be passed
declaring the legitimate 1/8th share of each of the
plaintiffs, defendants No.1 to 3 and proforma
defendant in respect of suit properties and the
defendant No.1 to 3 may be directed to make
partition of the suit properties within the
stipulated time as may be fixed by the Court.
Failing which said preliminary decree be
made final through process of Court.
b) Decree be passed for setting aside the deed
of relinquishment vide No.11541500260
dt.25.04.2015 as it is void and illegal and not
binding on the plaintiffs.
c) Decree be passed declaring the Regd. Lease
Sale deed vide R.L.D. No.11542300396 dt.
20.03.2023 executed by defendant No.1 to 3 in
favour of defendant No.4 as void, illegal and not
binding on the plaintiffs.
d) Cost of the suit be awarded in favour of the
plaintiff.
e) Any other relief as the Court think proper be
granted in favour of the plaintiffs."
5. As is revealed from the prayers made in the Plaint,
the issue involved in the said lis is pertaining to partition of
immovable properties situated within the territorial
jurisdiction of the Court at Puri. Even though the Petitioners
are staying in Bhubaneswar, the suit for partition was rightly
preferred by them in Puri in the year 2023, before the Court
having territorial jurisdiction.
6. A query being made, learned Counsel for the
Petitioners fairly submits before this Court that at the time of
presenting the said Suit in the year 2023, both the
Petitioners, who are the Plaintiffs in Civil Suit No.414 of 2023,
were residing in Bhubaneswar and at present also they are
residing in Bhubaneswar.
7. After taking into consideration the grounds urged
in the Transfer Petition for transfer of proceeding from Puri to
Bhubaneswar, submission made by the learned counsel for
the Petitioner and the settled position of law, this Court is of
the view that such grounds are not convincing to consider the
prayer made in this transfer petition. That apart, the
Petitioners, who are the Plaintiffs in Civil Suit No.414 of 2023,
are not supposed to attend the said proceeding on each and
every date, as they are represented through a lawyer. Only
their presence would be required in the said proceeding, if
they intend to depose as PWs in Civil Suit No.414 of 2023. If
there is any inconvenience for them to remain physically
present before the said Court for adducing evidence because
of their health issues, they can be examined through Video
Conferencing mode following due procedure prescribed under
the Orissa High Court Video Conferencing for Courts Rules,
2020, or on commission, as provided under Order 26, Rule 4
C.P.C, if it is prayed so by moving an appropriate application
to the said effect at the stage of trial.
8. In a recent judgment passed in TRP(C) No.292 of
2022 (Santilata Prusty Vrs. Shibani Prusty and others),
this Court, taking note of the judgments passed by the
Supreme Court in Indian Overseas Bank, Madras Vs.
Chemical Construction Company and others, reported in
(1979) 4 SCC 358 so also coordinate Bench in Benudhar
Swain and others Vs. Nilamani Swain and others,
reported in 2005 (II) OLR 509, took a similar view.
9. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to
allow the prayer made in the transfer petition.
10. However, it is made clear that rejection of the
prayer made in the Transfer Petition shall not be a bar for the
Petitioners, who are the Plaintiffs in Civil Suit No.414 of 2023,
to move appropriate application before the Court of learned
2nd Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Puri, seeking
leave of the said Court to allow them to be examined through
Video Conferencing mode, apart from seeking remedies under
the C.P.C for recording of their evidences through
Commission, if they are so advised.
11. Accordingly, the transfer petition stands disposed
of.
12. Urgent certified copy of this judgment be granted
on proper application.
................................
S.K. MISHRA, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Dated, the 11th November, 2025/Prasant
Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR PRADHAN
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 12-Nov-2025 19:19:30
