.--»«-.».•!»" ®ni»» Bench THE HIGH COURTOF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH Tr. Pet. (Civil) No. \0 /2011 APPLICANT: ^£€ ^ RESPONDENT : Spit. M.Shailja Rani, aged about 33 years, W/o Shri Ramu kurmt, Resident of Bhanpuri,Raipur, DIstrict Raipur (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS Ramu Kurmi aged about 35 years, S/o Late Nok Raju, Resident of Biudhwari Bazar,Korba Tahsil and District - Korba (Chhattisgarh) APPLICATION UNDER SECTiON24_OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE 1908 ^ :->^s^'23^., ,^pp-'ll ^ ^ssss^ Ss s HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH. BiLASPUR BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR MiSHRA. J. Transfer Petition (CivHi No. 10 of2011 PETITIONER Smt. M. Shailja Rani. Versus iNT Ramu Kurmi. &nn Sandeep Dubey,counsei for the petitioner. ORDER ( This application under Section 24 of C.P.C. has been preferred seeking transfer of the proceedings pendlng before the Principal Bench Family Court, Korba to Family Court, Raipur. (2) Learned counsel for the petitioner wouid submit that it is difficult ror the petitioner to attend each date of hearing before Principal Bench Famiiy Court, Korba, as she is residing at Raipur. (3) It is to be seen that distance between Korba to Raipur is less than Kms. It is not the case of the petitioner that the inconvenience is of such a hature where the trial befare the forum chosen by the respondent would result in denial of justice and that whiie attending the Court at Korba there is any such contingency which wouid debar the petitioner from conducting her tase fairly. (4) In the matter of Anmdffs Das vs Snjrt Das reported in f2006j 9 SCC f97 it has been observed by the Hon'bie Supreme Court that ieniency shown - by th'e Courts in favour of women and giving weight to their convenience is being misused. (5) In the matter of Dav Boys Senlor Secondary School and Others vs -Oav College Msnaging Commlttee reported in (2010) 8 SCC 401 it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that mere convenience of the /-' •-2,- parties not enough to seek transfer but it must be shown that trial before the chosen forum would result in denia! ofjustice to the person seeking transfer. (6) In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to entertain the transfer petition, which fails and is herebvdismissed. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge L ^ ^