IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. T.A.No.389 of 2008 Date of Decision: 15.5.2009 Rajeshwari. ....... Applicant through Shri Rahul Sharma, Advocate. Versus Kuldeep Kaur and others. ....... Respondent no.1 through Shri Amit Rawal, Advocate. Service upon respondent no.2 dispensed with. Respondent nos. 3 & 4 ex parte. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This is an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (for short, `the C.P.C.') for transfer of the Probate Case No.1 of 2.7.3.2006, titled “Kuldeep Kaur versus General Public and others”, which is pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Chandigarh. It has been averred in the application that the aforesaid probate matter pertains to the estate of late Shri Pawandeep Sandhu and the applicant is his legally wedded wife; and that the respondents have set up a Will which is the subject-matter of probate proceedings. One of the grounds on which the transfer has been sought is that it is extremely difficult for the applicant to attend to the proceedings in T.A.No.389 of 2008 -2- .... Ludhiana for the reason that she is mother of two young children,one of whom is a twenty six years, old daughter, who had met with an accident in 2001 and is 100% disabled and is still in coma and requires complete attention. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant has made every effort to attend to the proceedings in Ludhiana for the last almost three years since the proceedings were initiated and that she has also made efforts to attend to the proceedings on all dates when the matter was taken up from 2006 to 2008, but she is now facing extreme difficulty in doing so for the reason that her daughter requires constant care and attention. He further pointed out that respondent no.1-Kuldeep Kaur is a resident of Mohali, whereas respondent nos. 3 & 4 are residents of Delhi. It is, thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that respondent no.1 being the resident of Mohali will have no difficulty in attending the proceedings in Chandigarh or Mohali and similarly, the applicant's attending to the same will also be facilitated if the proceedings are transferred to Chandigarh from Ludhiana. He submitted that no prejudice would be caused to respondent no.1 in view of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the C.P.C. as the proceedings can be taken up by the transferee Court from the stage where they are in the transferor Court. He further contended that she is willing to compensate the respondent for the amount she might require to engage a counsel in the event of her prayer for transfer being accepted. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.1 T.A.No.389 of 2008 -3- .... strenuously contended that the evidence of respondent no.1 is almost complete and the applicant has been adopting delaying tactics. It is submitted that the applicant had unsuccessfully raised the plea of jurisdiction before the Court at Ludhiana and having failed to get the issue of jurisdiction decided in the first instance, she has resorted to the present application after lapse of two years of having participated in the proceedings in Ludhiana. He further submitted that the instant application deserves to be dismissed. I have thoughtfully considered the rival contentions/ submissions and have perused the averments made in the application and its reply. The Supreme Court in a number of judgments has held that the convenience of the parties is a good ground to transfer a proceeding from one Court to another. In the instant case, it has not been denied by respondent no.1 that the daughter of the applicant is bed-ridden for the last 7 to 8 years after having suffered 100% disability in a vehicular accident. Having regard to the above fact, as also the fact that respondent no.1 is a resident of Mohali and no serious prejudice is likely to be caused to her if the proceedings are transferred to Mohali where she resides and further the applicant is a resident of Chandigarh and it will be convenient for her to attend the proceedings at Mohali, this application is accepted and Probate Case No.1 of 27.3.2006 titled “Kuldeep Kaur Versus General Public and others” pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, Ludhiana is transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge, Mohali. T.A.No.389 of 2008 -4- .... The record of the case be remitted to the transferee Court immediately, who will proceed therein in accordance with law. The petitioner shall compensate respondent no.1 with an amount of Rs.15000/- to enable her to meet the expenses of a counsel. May 15,2009 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge