1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 22 OF 2009 Charu Mehta ... Applicant v/s Mrs.Rekhaben H. Sheth & ors. ... Respondents Mr.Aspy Chinoy with Mr.V.Dhond, S/Shri Raj Patel, Ranbir Singh, Nazir Rizvi, Pranav Sampat & Hetal Thakore i/by M/s. Thakore Jariwala 7 Associates for the applicant. Mr.Dinyar Madon with Snehal “Shah & Atul V Daga i/by M/s. Wadia Ghandhy & Co. for respondent Nos.10 & 17. Ms.R.C.Nichani with Shane Sapeco i/by M/s.Hariani & Co. for respondent Nos. 7 & 8. Mrs.Lara Jesani i/by M/s.Dinesh Tiwari & Associates for the respondent No.9. Mr.Jay Kansara i/by M/s.paras Kuhad & Associates for respondent Nos.4, 5 7 11. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 7TH SEPTEMBER, 2009 P.C.: 1. This application has been moved for transfer of the proceedings pending between the parties from the City Civil and Sessions Court, Dindoshi to the City Civil and Sessions 2 Court, Greater Bombay, under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The reasons for seeking the transfer are that: (i) the parties to the litigations are senior citizens and therefore it is difficult for them to travel all the way to Dindoshi when they live in South Mumbai; (ii) both the applicant and her husband who is Respondent No.6 suffer from various illnesses which are mentioned in the application; (iii) some of the respondents also live in South Mumbai; and (iv) the advocates/counsel/solicitors attending the matters have their offices in South Mumbai. 3. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Gulam Pandit & anr. v/s Umesh J. Prasad, reported in (2002) 10 SCC 551. In my opinion, the prayer of the applicant cannot be granted. The aforesaid reasons cannot be considered as sufficient cause for transfer of the pending proceedings. The Supreme Court in the case of Ram Gulam Pandit (supra) has transferred guardianship proceedings from Raigarh, Maharashtra to the Family Court in Patna. This was a transfer from one State to the other and the Supreme Court had considered the age of the grandparents and of the minor child and transferred the proceedings from Maharashtra to Patna. 3 4. In my opinion, merely because both, the applicant and some of the respondents are of an advanced age and would have to travel long hours from South Mumbai to Dindoshi, is not a sufficient reason to transfer the matter. A reply has been filed to this application in which it is stated that the constituted attorney of the applicant represents her and verifies pleadings on her behalf in all the pending litigations. This averment has not been denied by the applicant. Therefore the applicant, in my opinion, cannot claim that she is at a disadvantage for having to travel to Dindoshi. The other reasons also, in my opinion, are not good cause for transferring the matter to the City Civil Court, Greater Bombay. 5. Application rejected. ..... 4