Dismissed

Lt. Col. Shokat Ali (Retd.) v. Abdul Jabbar Khan

Rajasthan HC1 Sept 2022CTA/64/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge bench dismissed an application under Section 24 CPC seeking transfer of a civil suit regarding a co-operative society membership dispute from Civil Court, Didwana to Civil Court, Sardarshahar, holding that the cause of action arose where the plaintiff resided.

What did the court decide?

Transfer application under Section 24 CPC dismissed. No order as to costs.

Lt. Col. Shokat Ali (Retd.) Vs Abdul Jabbar Khan — Specific Performance | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Transfer Application No. 64/2022

¶3

Lt. Col. Shokat Ali (Retd.) S/o Amanullah Khan, Age 71 Years, Caste Kayamkhani Permanent R/o Village Jhanjhot, Post Khudot Tehsil Chirawa District Jhunjhunu Raj. At Present Sanyojak Rajasthan Kayamkhani Mahasabha, Didwana District Nagaur (Registration No. 316/1979-80)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Abdul Jabbar Khan S/o Late. Gulam Mohammed Khan, Caste Kayamkhani R/o Ward No. 22 Near Kalu Khan Ka Kuaa Sardarshahar, District Churu Raj.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Rajak Khan Mr. Mohit Singh Choudhary
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Zafar Khan Mr. Asif Moyal

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR J U D G M E N T

¶10

PRONOUNCED ON	: 01.09.2022
RESERVED ON	: 05.08. 2022

¶11

The present transfer petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking transfer of Civil Suit bearing No.10/2022 titled “Abdul Jabbar Khan Vs. Lt. Col. Shokat Ali (Retd.) & Ors.” pending before Civil Judge, Sardarshahar, District-Churu to Civil Court, Didwana, DistrictNagaur.

¶12

The respondent-plaintiff presented a plaint before Civil Judge, Sardarshahar, District-Churu stating inter alia that he has been member of Rajasthan Kayamkhani Mahasabha (hereinafter referred to as ‘RKM’) since 2010. For the upcoming elections, RKM initiated membership drive along with ancillary processes. It was further stated that the respondent-plaintiff for renewal of his

¶13

(2 of 5) [CTA-64/2022]

¶14

membership of RKM, offered ₹25 for three years while the defendant Nos. 1 and 3 demanded ₹500 in cash for the same. The respondent-plaintiff thereupon showed defendants, a copy of the constitution of RKM, clearly mentioning the membership fees for

¶15

three years to be ₹25 only. The defendant Nos.1 and 3 nonetheless insisted upon payment of ₹500 for renewing membership for three years. The respondent-plaintiff in the aforesaid circumstances sent through registered post to RKM, two cheques to the tune of ₹500 and ₹1000 respectively, for renewing his membership and for admitting his son as member of RKM. Despite the registered post being delivered at the registered office of RKM, the cheques were not presented for payment. In the civil suit, the respondent-plaintiff apprehended that the constitution of RKM is being amended illegally without adhering to due process with an ulterior object to prepare a voter list for the ensuing elections of RKM that is favourable to defendant Nos.1 and 3. On the basis of aforesaid facts, plaintiff prayed for following reliefs:

¶16

“अतः श्रीमानजीसेनिनवेदनहैनि�वादबह�वादीखि�लाफप्रनितवादी स्वी�ार�रइसप्र�ारसेनि�क्रीफरमायाजावेनि�:-

¶17

(�) जरिरयेनि�क्रीघोषणात्म�इसआशय�ीजारी�ीजावेनि�प्रनितवादी सं. 1 ता 3 द्वारा�ीगयीअबत��ीसमस्तगैर�ानूनीचन्दावसुली�ो शुन्यवनिनष्प्रभावीघोनिषतनि�याजावे।

¶18

(�) जरिरयेनि�क्रीनिचरस्थाईनिनषेधाज्ञासेपाबंदनि�याजावेनि�प्रनितवादीसं. 2 �ेनिवरुद्धप्रभावीसंनिवधान�ेनिवरूद्धनिबनाआमसभा�ीअनुमनित�े अपनेमनमज; �ेसंवैधानिन�संशोधननिबनाआमसभा�ीअनुमनित�ेनही �रे। (ग) जरिरयेनि�क्रीनिचरस्थाईनिनषेधाज्ञासेप्रनितवादीसं. 1 ता 3 �ोपाबंद नि�याजावेनि�वो�ायम�ानीमहासभा�ेरिर�ो�< मेमनमज; सेहेराफेरी नही�रे, राजस्थान�ायम�ानीमहासभा�ेप्रभावीसंनिवधान�ेनिवरूद्ध सदस्यताअनिभयान/मतदातासूची�ाप्र�ाशननही�रे, वादी�ो महासभा�ेसंनिवधान�ेनिवरुद्धनिबनाआमसभा�ीराय�ेगैर�ानूनी वसुलीनहीं�रेंऔरनाहीनि�सीप्र�ार�ी�ोईगैर�ानूनीमतदाता सूची�ाप्र�ाशन�रेऔरनाहीचुनावप्रनिक्रया�ाआरम्भ�रे, प्रनितवादी सं. 1 ता 3 �ोपाबंदनि�याजावेनि�वोसंनिवधानमेंनि�सीप्र�ार�ा�ोई संशोधन, परिरवत<न, परिरवद्वाननिबनाआमसभा�ेनहीं�रेवप्रनितवादीसं. 4 �ोपाबंदनि�याजायेनि�वोप्रनितवादीसं. 1 ता 3 द्वारानिदयेजानेवाले नि�सीभीरिर�ो�< �ोपत्रावलीमेंशानिमलनही�रेऔरनाहीऐसा�ोई �ाय< याउप�ाय< स्वयंअथवाअपनेएजेन्टों�ेमाध्यमसे�रेअथवा�रावे निजससेवादीव�ायम�ानीसमाज�ेव्यखिHयोंपरनिवपरीतअसरपड़े। (घ) �चा< मु�दमावादी�ाप्रनितवादीगणसेनिदलवायाजाये। (�) अन्य�ोईन्यानिय�अनुतोषजोवादीनिहत�रहोवोभीनिदलवाया ” जावे।अनिधवHावादी

¶19

(3 of 5)

¶20

[CTA-64/2022]

¶21

After service of notices upon defendants, the present petitioner-defendant No.1 preferred an application before the Court of Civil Judge, Sardarshahar, under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of plaint on the grounds that firstly, none of the defendants reside within the local limits of the court in whose jurisdiction, the suit has been instituted by the respondent-plaintiff. Secondly, the elections and membership drive of RKM is carried out by its registered office at Didwana, District-Nagaur.

¶22

It is noticed that while the aforesaid application is pending adjudication before the court of Civil Judge, Sardarshahar, DistrictChuru, the present transfer application under Section 24 of CPC has been preferred by the petitioner-defendant No.1 before this Court seeking transfer of Civil Suit bearing No.10/2022 titled “Abdul Jabbar Khan Vs. Lt. Col. Shokat Ali (Retd.) & Ors.” pending before Civil Judge, Sardarshahar, District-Churu to Civil Court, Didwana, District-Nagaur.

¶23

Shri Rajak Khan Haidar, learned counsel for the petitionerdefendant No.1 argued that the respondent-plaintiff has filed the civil suit in Sardarshahar, District-Churu only to obstruct the proposed election process of RKM. The respondent-plaintiff is well aware that RKM is registered with Co-operative Department, District-Nagaur having its registered office at Tehsil-Didwana, District-Nagaur. Counsel further argued that none of the defendants reside in Tehsil-Sardarshahar, District-Churu. He urged that RKM possesses limited financial resources and therefore, in the interest of justice, Civil Suit bearing No.10/2022 be

¶24

(4 of 5)

¶25

[CTA-64/2022]

¶26

transferred to Civil Court having competent jurisdiction at TehsilDidwana, District-Churu.

¶27

Per contra, Shri Asif Moyal, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff submitted that the cause of action to institute the civil suit arose in Tehsil-Sardarshahar, District-Churu when defendant Nos.1 and 3 refused to accept the fees tendered in lieu of renewal of membership. Counsel further argued that the respondent-plaintiff has a right to choose forum for institution of suit. He further submitted that the application filed by petitionerdefendant under Order 7 Rule 11 for rejection of plaint on the ground of jurisdiction is pending adjudication before the court of learned Civil Judge, Sardarshahar. He urged that the present transfer application under Section 24 of CPC has been filed with an ulterior object to impede the proceedings pending before the court of Civil Judge, Sardarshahar and therefore, the same may be dismissed.

¶28

Heard arguments advanced at Bar and perused the material available on record.

¶29

In the case of Indian Overseas Bank, Madras Vs.

¶30

Chemical Construction Companany & Ors. reported in (1979) 4 SCC 358, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-

¶31

“The principle governing the general power of transfer and withdrawal under Section 24 of the Code is that the plaintiff is the dominus litis and, as such, entitled to institute his suit in any forum which the law allows him. The Court should not lightly change that forum and compel him to go to another Court, with consequent increase in inconvenience and expense of prosecuting his suit. A mere balance of convenience in favour of proceedings in another Court, albeit a material consideration may not always be a sure criterion justifying transfer.”

¶32

(5 of 5)

¶33

[CTA-64/2022]

¶34

It is not disputed that the respondent-plaintiff resides in Tehsil-Sardarshahar, District-Churu. The cause of action for institution of suit arose on denial to accept the fee for renewal of membership of RKM by defendant Nos.1 and 3 at Sardarshahar. Section 20 of CPC permits plaintiff to institute a suit where the defendant resides or the cause of action arises. The language of the section clearly shows that the plaintiff can choose a forum of his choice and cannot be compelled to go to the place where the defendants reside. It is settled law that the jurisdiction of the court where the cause of action wholly or partly arises cannot be taken away by the choice of the parties merely because it causes inconvenience to either of the parties. The power of transfer given under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure for transfer of any suit, appeal or other proceedings from one court to another is required to be exercised with extreme caution, circumspection and in the interest of justice.

¶35

In the light of above discussion, this Court clearly finds that the cause of action arose to the respondent-plaintiff at Sardarshahar, District-Churu. There is nothing on record to show that if the suit is tried by the court of Civil Judge, Sadarshahar, it would occasion to failure of justice.

¶36

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the transfer application filed under Section 24 of CPC is dismissed.

¶37

No order as to costs.

¶38

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶39

C 1-Ravi Kh./-

Lt. Col. Shokat Ali (Retd.) v. Abdul Jabbar Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lt. Col. Shokat Ali (Retd.) v. Abdul Jabbar Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Udailal @ Udairam Vs Rameshwarlal

Harnek Singh Josan Vs Shweta Singh

Sahrun Son of Phattu Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Shakuntala Devi Wife of Shri Pooranmal Saini Vs State of Rajasthan

Rakesh Garg Vs State of Rajasthan

Har Bhagwan Monga Vs State and Ors.