h IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2011 ®ng1«BCHili PETITIONER -».y -^s*-'" ^-" '^^y RES^ONDENTS Smt. Neetu SinghThakur, aged Aiout 30 years, W/o Baldou Singh Thakur, R/o I.T.I. Quarter, Koni, Police Station-Koni, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS y ,ialdou Singh Thakur, aged about 35 years, S/o Shri Dhruw Singh Thakur, Occupation- Governnient Teacher, R/o Village-Chamari, P.O.-Baki, P.S. 8s TahsU-Mungeli, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) NSFER PETITION UNDER SECTION 24 OFCODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BiLASi @LE£ENCH. : HON'BLE SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR Transfer Petition (Civill No. 9 of 2Q11 PETiTIONER Smt. Neetu Singh Thakur. Versus ^J, RESPONDENT Baldou Singh Thakur. Shri Bharat Rajput, counsel for the setitloner. (01/07/2011) This application una'er Section 24 of C.P.C. has been preferred seeking transfer of the proceedings pending before the II Adciitionai DistricS Judge (F.T.C.), Mungeii instituted by the respondent for custody of minor Yuvraj Singh, to a Court ofcompetentjurisdlction at Biiaspur. (2) Learned counsei for the petitioner would submit that it is difficult for the petitioner to attend each date of hearing before the II Additional District Judge, Mungeli. (3) It is to be seen that distance beiween Mungell to Koni is less than 60 Kms. It is not the case of the petitioner that the inconveniencs is of such a nature where the triai before the forum c'nosen by the respondent wouid result in denial of justice and that whlle attending the Court at Mungeli there is any such contlngency which would debar the petitioner from conduding her case fairiy. (4) In the matter of Aninwta Das vs Srljtt Das reported in f2006) 9 SCC 197 it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that leniency shown by the Courts in favour of woffien and giving weisht to their convenience is being misused. (5) in the matter of Dav Boys Senior Secondary Schooi ana' Others vs Dav College Managing Commlttee reported in {2010) 8 SCC 401 it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that mere convenience of the ./- .ii" 9s, -^. .,? s "'A, v\ •-2. parties not enough to seek transfer but it must be s'nown that tria! before the c'nosen forum would resuit in denial ofjustice to the person seeking transfer. (6) In view of the abov®,this Court is not inclined to entertain the transfer petition, which fails and is hereby_dismissed. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge IL. ^ r