K Hffi.^ l$Kii IIBISS^ liUB-' asi ?"- INTHEIHGH COURTOFJUTOCATURE AT BILASPUR WRrr PETITION (227t N0. kp^ 7ty /2009 PETITIONER: (Applicant) }^ Deepak Kumar Budhadeo, S/0 Late Shri Laljibhai Budhadeo, aged-51 yeEirs, Occupa.tion- Editor, K p.ft ...... Dainik Daa, R/0 Gandhi Chowk, --r--"''^i^cyrt^ _ ; .-^(^J.to.^-^-"" Rajanandgapn, District >.ft-nu-"";^W^"*C7'^\.....-- " " ' p,6se«w V^^.J''^-]-""" Rajnandgaon (C.G) te d--""""' ' Vs. ,S s» RESPONDENT: (Non-Applicant) Vila-ant Singh, S/0 Shri Siddhai-th Singh, ^ged-32 years, Occu.pation-Agriculturalist and Shopkeeper, R/0 Ward no. 3, Ganjipara, Nagar Panchayat Khairagarh, District Rajnahdgaori i^-G) • - ' .. WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTiei^ 227 OF TVSE CONSTmmON QFLINDIA :MII ;BI lllil iin III 11.i;^'? ^ PBTmONER HIOH GOURT OFCHKATnSGARH. BIL^PUR W.P. ( 227 >No. 6670 of 2009 Deepak Kumar Budhadeo RESPONDEarr Versus Vllcrant Sir^i SB: HON'BLE 8HRI N.K. AQRAWAL, J PRBSBNT: Shri R^eev Shrivasteva, Advocate fra- the petitioner. ORAL ORDBR (16-11-2009) fel. Heard on admission. This petition Mises out of the order dated 19th August, 2009 passed by the Distdct Judge, Rqnandgaon in Misc. Civil Case No. 14/2006. Facts briedy statedareas undeE- The plaintiff/respondent herem filed a suit elaiEXung Rs. 50,000/- as dainages against the petftioner for fais defamation. ITie suit was r^istered as CivU Sult No. 43- B/2005 and is pending conslderatilon before fhe Qivil Judge Glass I, KIiataigarh. Vhe petitioner filed an appllcation undCT Section 24 ofthe C.P.C. for its transfCT to some other Courton tfae ground that the plaintiQ" 1s an influential person and as per well-wishers of the petitioner,he may be harmed by fhe plaintiff whfle attendu^ the Court. The plaintiff filed his regty and denied the said allegations. The trial Court recorded tts figduig in para 8, 9 and 10 of the order, held fhat the petitioner has not aUeged anythiag agaiast Itie Preadii^ Of&cer; the suit relates to one publication made by the petitkmer lumself ^aas^t the defcndffirt; wheii ttie casejts fixed fbr evidence fhdi mera appr^ienKten shown l^<t^ petitioiaer about aflleged daiigpr te> lusli^ couldbe EK>I ^- w 6. 7. 8. for transfer of fhe suit; dismlssed the transfer application. Hence fhis petition. Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, leanied counsel for the petltioner, retylng upon tfae judgment of Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in JaaatasBm Shri Shaatauacltairva Jvotirfi Peethadhiswar Shri Swand SirauFoopanaad Sarasirati -v- Ranafl Tripathl Lal BIliari Trioathi reported in 1979 MPLJ 305, would submit that fhe sald application has been dismissed by the trial Court on the sole ground that tfae petitioner did not allege anythir^ against the R-esiding Officer and, therefore, Che order is bad in law and deserves to toe set aside. I have leamed coiinsel for the petitioner. l A bare perusal of the order ofthe trial Court woidd reveal that the trial Court has passed the order unpugaed after takfaig into consideration eveiy ^pect of the matter. The suit itself was filed claimmg damages on account of Ms alleged defamatlon by the defendant/petitioner. The allegations are based on mformation received fl-om some crf his well-wlshers without filmg any cogent material in this regard. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh in case of JMSRtonru SIul Shaakaracharva (supra) also held that fhe platoflff as m-biter (flis has a right to choose his own forum aml that right sfaould not be mterfered wlfh except on very strong grounds. Ttoe search shoiild be for justice and Court must be satisfied tbat justice could more l&ely be done between the parties by refusing to aUow ptaintiff to contmue his suit in fhe forum of his choiGe. The oiius of establishu^; sufiicient groi.mds for fcansfer Ues heavily on the applicant. Preponderance of balance of convenience 1s prime considecatiai foT fa'antfer of suit. By applying the said principle in fhe fectsand cipcumstaiaiGes; of the present case, tt is crystal clear that |fhe pIainyBf|Kas; instituted a suit in flie jiirisdictional Gourt. No <ms ^aitBffiHi ^c were madeagainst the Presidii^ Officer. Allegations r^arding danger to life by the plaintiffare as vague as it coiiM be. The sult relates to recovery of damages on aocount of plaintiff's defamation allegedly by the petitioner by publishing some news item in fhe newspaper. Therefore, ta the circumstances, no case has been made out by the petitioner for transfer of fhe case and, leamed trial Court has rightly dismlssed fhe appUcation. 9. It is weU settled principles of law that fUs Court, in exerdse of its supervisoiy jurisdiction under Artide 227 of the Constitution of India, should refi'ain itsetf from mterfering with fhe order passed by the Court below except ui siich cases where perversity, illegality or jurisdictional errpr is writ large on the face offhe record, which is not in the present case. 10. The beingwifhout substanee deserves to be disiaissed and the same is hereby dlsmissed at motion stage. Sd/- N.K.AgarwaI Judge