4.The only reason projected by the petitioners for seeking the transfer is that inasmuch as the first petitioner is working at Sathyamangalam Court Campus as Legal Aid Convenor and also requiring to look after her aged parents and minor children, according to them, they would be convenient, if the proceeding is conducted at Sathyamangalm Court. However, the reason projected for transfer as such cannot be accepted readily. The petitioners being represented by an able advocate at Triupur Court, considering the nature of the proceeding laid by the petitioners at Triupur Court, it is seen that the petitioners' presence may not be required on all the hearing dates. The advocate, who is appearing on behalf of the petitioners, could very well attend the proceeding at Tirupur Court during their absence as per the instructions received from the petitioners now and then and only on the hearing date, when the evidence of the petitioners is to be tendered, the presence of the petitioners i.e. the first petitioner may be required. In such view of the matter, to say that the petitioners would find it difficulty to conduct the case at Triupur Court as such cannot be readily accepted. When the petitioners have chosen Tirupur Court as the forum for instituting the case, thereafter, the petitioners cannot be allowed to plead convenience and seek the transfer of the case to other Court and in particular, when the alleged convenience projected by the petitioners as such not being a acceptable cause as such for effecting the transfer. It is seen that as rightly put forth by the second respondent, only to delay the proceeding of the Court below, the present transfer petition has come to be laid.
