^) ®fl|liBench BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TRANSFER PETITION (C) N0. / 2011 APPLICANT NON-APPLICANT 1) 2) 3) Shailendra' Sahu, S/o Shri Gyaneshwar Sahu, aged about 37 years, R/o House No. 1081, near Bhole Baba Mandir, Shakti Nagar, Gupteshwar, P.S.: Gorakhpur, Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh) ' VERSUS Smt. Pinky , Sahu, W/o Shailendra Sahu, D/o Subhash Chandra Gupta, aged about 30 years; R/o Rajgamar, Prem Nagar, P.0.: Ompur, District- Korba (Chhattisgarh) PARTICULARS QFTHELQWER COURT CASE CFVILSUITNO.: 34-A/2010 PARTIES NAME: SMT.PINKY SAHU vs. SHAILENDRA SAHU NAME OF COURT: FAITILY COURT, KORBA (C.G.) APPLICATION UNDER SECTION- 24 OFTHE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 FQR TRANSFER OF THE CIVIL SUIT ^ HIGH COURT OF ChfrlATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Transfer Petition (C) No. 11 of 2011 PETITtQNER Shaitondra Sahu RESPONDENT Versus Smt. Pinky Sahu APPLICATIOhf UNDER SEGTION 24 OF THE COOE OF CIVH. ^'ROCEDORE.ISOTFORTRANSFER OF THE CIVJL SUrf (SB: Hon'bte Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.) Present : Mr. Anand Dadariya, counsel fw the applicant. ORDER (1S.07.2011) Heard on admission. 1. This is applicant's/husband's transfer (»titiCTi for transfer of case fited by respondent/wife in the Family Court, Kortoa to Family Court, Bilaspur. 2. The grounds taken by the petitioner is that he is residing at Jabalpur (M.P.) and he can conveniently come te Bita^)ur but there is inconvenlence for him to come to Korba ami to attend the oourt and, therefore, the case may be trarsferred from Korba to Bilaspur. 3. Shri Anand Dadariya, leamed counsel affiearing fcr the applicant by placing reliance upon the judgment of the Sup'eme Court in case of Kulwinder Kaur allas Kulwindw Qumchanm Slngh \/s. Kandl Frtends Educatlon Tnst and othws reported in 2008 (3) SCC 858 in paragraph 23 would submit : the Cwrt has to see the inter se convenience between the parties and in vlew of stoove, the case deserves to be transferred from Korba to Bilaspur. 4. I have heard counsel for e applicant and perused the material available on record. 5. There is no quarrel with the proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court in tte above referred case. However, tn the Instarrt case, the applteant is residing at Jabalpur. Admittedly, he can come to attend the Court situateet at Bilasour. BilasDur and Korba are well ''"^ ^79 connected cities and conveyance is readily avaNable, therefore, thls Court fails to understand why he cannot come and attend the Court at Korba. The reason for transfer shown by the petitioner is not plausible. 6. For the reasons mentioned hereipabove, the transte | tition being without substance is llable to be and Is hereby dtemissed. Sdi- N.K. Agarwal Judge •^ ^ t