Smt. Manorama Patel Vs Shri Bhukhsay

¶1

1

¶2

CGHC010246082026 2026:CGHC:28351

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

TPC No. 111 of 2026

¶6

1 - Smt. Manorama Patel W/o Late Shri Vidya Patel Aged About 68 Years Occupation- Housewife, R/o House No. A-11, Babji Nagar, Tifra, Police Station And Tehsil Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh- 495001

¶7

Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN Date: 2026.07.12 13:22:22 +0530

¶8

2 - Smt. Yamini Praveen Singh W/o Shri Praveen Kumar Singh Aged About 41 Years R/o House No. A-11, Babji Nagar, Tifra, Police Station And Tehsil Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh- 495001

¶9

... Petitioner.

¶10

Versus

¶11

1 - Shri Bhukhsay S/o Gautin Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Nawapara Kala, Police Station And Tehsil Premnagar, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

2 - Shri Umendra S/o Baran Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Nawapara Kala, Police Station And Tehsil Premnagar, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

3 - Shri Kendi S/o Gautin Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Nawapara Kala, Police Station And Tehsil Premnagar, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

4 - Shri Bhuneshwar S/o Uttam Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Durti, Police Station And Tehsil Bhatgaon, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶15

5 - Shri Prem S/o Gautin Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Durti, Police Station And Tehsil Bhatgaon, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶16

2

¶17

6 - Shri Arti Lal S/o Late Sukhram Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Durti, Police Station And Tehsil Bhatgaon, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶18

7 - Shri Brijlal S/o Late Sukhram Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Durti, Police Station And Tehsil Bhatgaon, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶19

8 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶20

... Respondents.

¶21

(cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery)

¶22

For Petitioners	: Mr. PankajSingh, Advocate.
For State	: Mr. Siddharth Sharma PL.

¶23

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶24

Order on Board

¶25

09/07/2026

¶26

This Transfer Petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed seeking the transfer of Civil Suit No.A/309/2025 (Bhukhsay Vs. Umendra and others), filed by Respondent No. 1/plaintiff, from the Court of First Civil Judge, Junior Division, Surajpur, District Surajpur to the competent Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division at Bilaspur.

¶27

Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the plaintiff/Respondent No. 1 filed the aforesaid civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the petitioners herein (who are defendants No. 7 and 8) in respect of the subject property. The plaintiff (Respondent No. 1) and defendants No. 1 to 6 (Respondents No. 2 to 7 herein) are family members. The aforesaid civil suit has been filed by the plaintiff claiming the suit land, a portion of which has been purchased by the petitioners herein. Consequently, the petitioners have filed the present petition seeking the transfer of the civil suit.

¶28

3

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are mother and daughter. Petitioner No. 1 is an elderly lady suffering from various agerelated ailments. They reside in Bilaspur, and the distance from Surajpur to Bilaspur is approximately 280 kilometers. Petitioner No. 1 suffers from serious medical issues, it would be extremely difficult for her to travel such a long distance. Furthermore, petitioner No. 2 is an employee of SECL, her father resides in Delhi, and she has an 8-year-old minor son. Consequently, there is no one else to look after petitioner No. 1 except petitioner No. 2. It is also submitted that if the petitioners are required to travel to Surajpur to attend court hearings, there may be a threat to their safety and security due to the underlying property dispute. In view of these submissions, counsel prays for the transfer of the civil suit to a competent Civil Court at Bilaspur.

¶30

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, raises an objection to the aforesaid prayer.

¶31

It is well-settled law that a case can be transferred only on good and sufficient grounds. Convenience of the parties is a relevant factor, but it cannot override all other institutional considerations. The grounds raised by the petitioners (defendants No. 7 and 8) in this transfer petition appear to be general in nature, particularly considering that the underlying matter is a civil suit concerning a land dispute. If such grounds for transfer are accepted routinely, the statutory provisions governing territorial jurisdiction would be completely disturbed.

¶32

Furthermore, since the matter sought to be transferred is a civil dispute, therefore, the personal appearance of the parties is generally not required on each and every date of hearing, rather they can be effectively represented through their engaged counsel.

¶33

4

¶34

The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that the physical inconvenience of a party, especially in civil matters where personal attendance is rare, does not automatically warrant a transfer. In Anindita Das Vs. Srijit Das (2006) 9 SCC 197 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court cautioned against leniency in transfer petitions based solely on the grounds of being a woman or having a minor child, noting that the claim of helplessness must be weighed against the hardships caused to the other side.

¶35

Consequently, the grounds urged by the petitioners do not make out a compelling case for transfer. However, it is observed that when personal appearance of the petitioners is not explicitly required by the trial Court, they shall be at liberty to request the concerned Civil Court to appear through Video Conferencing. If such request is made, the trial court shall consider and facilitate the same in accordance with the prevailing rules/law.

¶36

With the aforesaid observations, the Transfer Petition stands dismissed.

¶37

Sd/(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge

¶38

Ajay

Smt. Manorama Patel v. Shri Bhukhsay

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Manorama Patel v. Shri Bhukhsay

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Leela Namdev Vs Amit Namdev

Narendra Kumar Rautkar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

S.B.I. General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Baisakhin Bai Markam

Juggadevi (Dead), Throguh Her Legal Representatives- Hemchand Sankalecha Vs Bachchu Mistri @ Abdul Gaffar

Surekha Barapatre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Adhin Ram Sinha Vs Sahni Ram Sahu