[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Subhashree Sahoo & Anr vs Panchanana Sahoo & Anr. ....... Opp. ... on 24 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
TRP(C) No.103 of 2026
(An application under Section 24 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908)
Subhashree Sahoo & anr. ....... Petitioners
-Versus-
Panchanana Sahoo & anr. ....... Opp. Parties
For Petitioners : Mr. K. Gaya,
Advocate
For Opp. Parties : None
----------------------------
CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing and Judgment: 24.04.2026
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.K. Mishra, J.
1. This Transfer Petition has been preferred by
the Petitioners, who are the Plaintiffs in Civil Suit No.75
of 2019, for transfer of proceeding in the said Suit from
the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Salipur
in the district of Cuttack to the Court of learned Civil
Judge (Senior Division), Kendrapara on the grounds
detailed therein.
2. The grounds urged in the transfer petition for
transfer of Civil Suit Case No.75 of 2019 are that, after
death of the husband of Petitioner No.1, she is residing in
her parental house at Kendrapara with her minor
daughter. She is dependent on her parents for her
livelihood as she has no source of income. There is no
male member in her family to accompany her to attend
the day to day proceeding at Salipur. The Opposite
Parties, who are the parents of her deceased husband,
are influential persons of Salipur and she would not be
able to contest the case before the Court at Salipur
effectively.
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.75 of 2019, as at Annexure-1, the following prayers
have been made:
"12. That the plaintiffs pray for the following
reliefs :
A) Let be declared that the registered gift deed
no. 880 dated 30.04.2016/E. Registration
no.10471600880 registered at Salipur
registration office purported to have been
registered by Panchanan sahoo, defendant no.1
in favour of Rashmita Sahoo, defendant no.2 in
respect of the suit land as mentioned in Sch.A
was and is a void abinitio and fraudulent
document, conveying no title in favour of the
defendant no.2.
B) The defendants be permanently restrained
from changing the nature and character of the
suit land and or from ousting the plaintiffs from
their peaceful enjoyment of the suit property and
or from transferring the suit property and or from
raising any constructions over the suit land as
mentioned in Sch.A below at any time in future
in any manner.
C) Cost of the suit be decreed in favour of the
plaintiffs and against the defendants.
D) The plaintiffs be given such other relief or
reliefs which the plaintiff may be deemed
entitled to."
5. As is revealed from the prayers made in the
Plaint, the issue involved in the said lis is pertaining to
legality of registered gift deed no. 880 dated
30.04.2016/E. Registration no.10471600880, registered
at Salipur Registration Office, so also to permanently
restrain the Defendants from changing the nature and
character of the suit land and/ or from ousting the
plaintiffs from their peaceful enjoyment of the suit
property and /or from transferring the suit property and/
or from raising any constructions over the suit land as
mentioned in Sch.A of the Plaint, which is within the
territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Salipur. Even
though the Petitioners are staying in Kendrapara, the suit
for partition was rightly preferred by them in Salipur in
the year 2019, before the Court having territorial
jurisdiction.
6. After taking into consideration the grounds
urged in the Transfer Petition for transfer of proceeding
from Salipur to Kendrapara, submission made by the
learned Counsel for the Petitioners 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.75 of 2019, 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.75 of 2019. 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.
7. 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.
8. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined
to allow the prayer made in the transfer petition.
9. 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.75
of 2019, to move appropriate application before the Court
of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Salipur, 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.
10. Accordingly, the transfer petition stands
disposed of.
11. Urgent certified copy of this judgment be
granted on proper application.
................................
S.K. MISHRA, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Dated, the 24th April, 2025/Prasant
Signed by: BANITA PRIYADARSHINI PALEI
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 24-Apr-2026 18:27:31
