Supreme Court Disposes Transfer Petition in Succession Proceedings; Lady Litigant's Travel and Financial Hardship Declines Transfer. Respondent's Offer to Pay Travel Expenses to Lady Petitioner and Court's Direction for Expeditious Disposal of Restoration and Main Succession Application.

Case Note & Summary

By way of a transfer petition before the Supreme Court of India, the petitioner sought transfer of Succession Application No. 43 of 1995 and Miscellaneous Application No. 23 of 1996, titled Ramajor Shitla Prasad Ojha & Ors. vs. Shiv Kumari Devandra Ojha, pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Valsad, Gujarat, to the competent court of Civil Judge at Sadar District Pratapgarh in Uttar Pradesh. The petition arose in the context of succession proceedings in which the petitioner, a lady, alleged difficulty in traveling from Uttar Pradesh to Gujarat and in bearing the associated expenditure. The respondents contested the transfer through counsel. On December 9, 1996, the Supreme Court had adjourned the matter to ascertain whether the suit was still pending or stood disposed of. Upon report, it was found that the matter remained pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Valsad. At the final hearing on January 13, 1997, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the petitioner's difficulty as a lady unable to travel from Uttar Pradesh to Valsad and the great difficulty in meeting expenses. Counsel also contended that the petitioner had to engage her counsel from Surat because no advocate would be available at Valsad. In response, Shri Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, agreed to bear the expenditure for the petitioner's travel and stay whenever she attended court. The Supreme Court considered this offer and found no justification to transfer the matter to Pratapgarh. It recorded that the respondents would pay Rs. 750 (Rupees seven hundred and fifty only) to the petitioner on each occasion she went to court, in advance. The petitioner was required to intimate the Civil Judge, Senior Division, who would direct the respondents to pay the amount. Addressing the petitioner's apprehension about lack of counsel at Valsad, the Court held that the apprehension was not correct and permitted the petitioner to engage counsel at Valsad, observing that such counsel would give his best to defend her case. The Court further stated that if the petitioner required any financial assistance from the respondents, it would be open to her to file an application before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Valsad, and the Civil Judge would order it. Finally, the Court directed the learned Civil Judge to dispose of the restoration application immediately and simultaneously take up the main matter and dispose of it expeditiously. Accordingly, the transfer petition was disposed of. The operative effect was that the proceedings were not transferred from Gujarat to Uttar Pradesh; instead, the Supreme Court put in place monetary safeguards and directions for expeditious disposal to mitigate the petitioner's difficulties. The judgment is a short procedural order without citation of statutory provisions or precedents.

Headnote

Issue of Consideration

Final Decision

The transfer petition was disposed of by refusing to transfer the matter to Pratapgarh. The Supreme Court directed that whenever the petitioner goes to court, the respondents shall pay Rs.750 on each occasion to the petitioner in advance; the petitioner would intimate the Civil Judge, Senior Division who would direct respondents to pay. Petitioner is at liberty to engage counsel at Valsad and may seek further financial assistance from respondents by filing application before Civil Judge, Senior Division, Valsad. The Civil Judge is directed to dispose of the restoration application immediately and simultaneously take up the main matter and dispose of the same expeditiously.

Law Points