Convenience of Parties is Secondary to Territorial Jurisdiction in Civil Suits Involving Immovable Property Subject-Matter

The Petitioners (the widow and minor daughter of late Manoj Kumar Sahoo) filed an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) seeking to transfer Civil Suit No. 41 of 2019 from the Court of the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Salipur to the Court of the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kendrapara

The suit, initiated by the Opposite Parties (the deceased husband’s parents), concerns the declaration of right, title, interest, and possession over schedule land

The Petitioners sought transfer on grounds of financial dependency, lack of a male escort, and the alleged local influence of the Opposite Parties at Salipur

1. Whether the personal inconvenience of the defendants and their lack of a male escort constitute sufficient grounds for the transfer of a civil suit under Section 24 of the CPC

2. Whether the availability of modern technological alternatives, such as video conferencing, mitigates the need for physical transfer of proceedings based on the party's inability to travel

The Court applied Section 24 of the CPC, which governs the general power of transfer and withdrawal of suits

It relied on the precedent set in Indian Overseas Bank, Madras v. Chemical Construction Company and others (1979) 4 SCC 358 and Benudhar Swain and others v. Nilamani Swain and others (2005) II OLR 509, which balance the convenience of parties against the jurisdictional sanctity of the court

The Court applied the Orissa High Court Video Conferencing for Courts Rules, 2020, and Order 26, Rule 4 of the CPC regarding the examination of witnesses on commission

The Court observed that the primary dispute involves immovable property and rights over land located within the jurisdiction of the Salipur Court; it was not contested that the Salipur Court lacked territorial jurisdiction

The Court reasoned that as defendants represented by counsel, the Petitioners are not required to be physically present on every date of the proceeding

To address the Petitioners’ concerns regarding travel and lack of a male escort, the Court held that these inconveniences are no longer insurmountable due to legal provisions for technological intervention. Specifically, any necessary testimony could be recorded via Video Conferencing or through a court-appointed commission at the trial stage

Consequently, the grounds urged did not outweigh the established legal principles regarding the stability of the forum in civil litigation

The petition was disposed of with the liberty granted to the Petitioners to apply for examination via Video Conferencing or Commission before the trial court at Salipur