VB Bencfc INTHE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) Transfer Petition (CivUl No. ^ qf2011 PETITIONERS ^•/<^^ ^-^r' RESPONDENT' :\y Sharan Singh Thakur, aged about^59 years, S/o Late Shri^h^ ^S j.n^ ,_Thakur, ^ Occupation- Chowkidar in I.T.I.'^/fl ZTJ-aqqr^-^ K^, P.-S- ^o^Sy,^- g; i<^P4rtCG; 2. Smt. Neetu Singh Thakur, aged < '- about 30 years, W/o Baldou SinghThakur, R/oI.T.I. Quarter, Koni, Police Station-Koni, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) V. VERSUS Baldou Singh Thakur, aged about 35 years, S/o Shri Dhruw Singh Thakur, Occupation- Government Teacher, R/o Village-Chamari,P.O.-Baki, P.S. & Tahsil-Mungeli, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) TRANSFER PETITION UNDER SECTION 24 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ft ^ • ^-^ ^ i HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BiLASPUR IGLEBENCH : HON'BLE SHRi PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA. J. Transfer Petition (Civiil No. 8 of 2011 PETITIONERS Sharan Sinah Thakur and another. Versus RESPONDENT Baldou Singh Thakur. Shri Bharat Rajput, counsel forthe petitionere. ORAL ORDER (01TO7/2011) This application under Section 24 of C.P.C. has been preferred seeking transfer of the proceedings pending before the !1 Additional District Judge, Mungeii instituted by the respondent for custody of minor Yuvraj Singh, to a Court of competentjurisdiction at Biiaspur. (2) Learned counsei for the petitioners would submit that it is difficult for the petitioners to attend each date of hearing before the II Additional District Judge, Mungeii and the petitioner No.1 is old age and is suffering from various diseases. (3) It is to be seen that distance between Mungeii io Koni is less than 60 Kms. It is not the case of the petitioner that the inconvenience is of such a nature wheve the triai before the forum chosen by the respondent would result in denial of justice and that whiie attending the Court at Mungeli there is any such contingency which would debar them from conducting their case fairiy. -(45 ' In the matter of Anlfidita Das vs Srijit Das reported in (2006) 197 it has been observed by'fhe Hon'ble Supreme Court that leniency shown by the Courts in favour of women and giving weight to their convenience is being misused. (5) In the matter of Dav Boys Senior Dav College Managing Committee econdaiy School and OShers vs in {2010} 8 SCC 401 it has /- :~-1'1^ ^ 2-' {K been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that mere convenience of the parties not enough to seek transfer but it must be shown that trial before the chosen forum would result in denial ofjustice to the person seeking transfer. (6) In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to entertain the transfer Detitlon, which faiis and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Prashant Kumar JVIishra Judge /-