SHARMA, J. - (1.) INVOKING Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short `cpc') the petitioner has filed the instant petition seeking transfer of the civil suit No. 41/2002/05 (Jitendra Singh vs. Bhanu Kumari & Others) pending before District Judge, Alwar.
(2.) AS per the facts pleaded in the petition the petitioner and her father Maharaja Sawai Tej Singh, former Ruler of erstwhile State of Alwar aged 95 years, are presently residing in New Delhi. In accordance with Article XI of the Covenant for the formation of the United State of Matsya in the year 1949 an inventory of Maharaja's private properties was drawn with the approval of Government of India. In terms of the said covenant the properties owned by Maharaja Sawai Tej Singh are being continued to be held by him. On July 29, 1970 a notice was issued by State Government to Maharaja Sawai Tej Singh under the provisions of Rajasthan Tenancy Act,1955 seeking to acquire the land in excess of the ceiling limits. Objections were filed on February 19, 1971 and vide order dated September 30, 1971 Sub Divisional Officer held that 576 standard acres of land is being possessed by Maharaja Sawai Tej Singh and it was directed to acquire the land in excess. On appeal the matter was remanded by Revenue Appellate Authority vide order dated February 6, 1973 with the directions to decide the matter afresh in terms of new Ceiling Act. On revision by State the Board of Revenue vide order dated May 16, 1977 quashed the order of Revenue Appellate Authority and directed SDO to decide the matter in terms of old Ceiling Law. Finally the SDO vide order dated June 21, 2005 held that 576 standard acres of land was in excess and directed the owner Maharaja Sawai Tej Singh to surrender the aforesaid land. Pursuant to the order dated June 21, 2005 Maharaja Sawai Tej Singh submitted his option for the properties sought to retain vide letter dated September 12, 2005 and surrendered the rest of the land to the State Government. It is further averred that respondent Jitendra Pratap Singh son of late Kunwar Pratap Singh (one of the grand sons of Maharaja Sawai Tej Singh), who is currently a member of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly from Alwar, residing at Alwar intended to take possession of the entire properties of Alwar owned by Maharaja Sawai Tej Singh with a malafide intention to grab the same without giving any share to existing sons, daughters and grand children of Maharaja Sawai Tej Singh. Inspite of the letter dated September 12, 2005 of Maharaja Sawai Tej Singh, respondent Jitendra Pratap Singh challenged the order dated June 21, 2005 by filing three appeals. One appeal was filed on behalf of Maharaja Sawai Tej Singh without any authority or power from Maharaja Sawai Tej Singh, second on behalf of Jitendra Singh and third on behalf of Minakshi Kumari. In none of the three appeals the petitioner was impleaded as party. The Revenue Appellate Authority took cognizance of the fact that inspite of surrendering the land and complying with the impugned order by Maharaja Sawai Tej Singh the same has been challenged therefore the surrendering of land appeared to be suspicious and vide order dated June 2, 2006 quashed the order of SDO and also the surrender deed. In the meantime on November 5, 2005 respondent Jitendra Pratap Singh lodged complaint against the petitioner with the Superintendent of Police Alwar alleging forgery, undue influence and captivity of Maharaja Sawai Tej Singh. The complaint was filed with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance and for exerting undue pressure over the petitioner with a view to grab whole properties of grand father of the petitioner Maharaja Sawai Tej Singh. He also filed suit before district & Sessions Judge Alwar seeking declaration and mandatory injunction against the petitioner and her brother and others. The suit was filed on November 7, 2005. On November 10, 2005 the District Judge Alwar passed ex-parte order for constitution of Medical Board for ascertaining the status of Maharaja Sawai Tej Singh. No notice were issued either to petitioner or Maharaja Sawai Tej Singh. Without giving any opportunity of hearing to petitioner or Maharaja Sawai Tej Singh the letter was issued to Chief Medical Officer, Govt. Hospital Alwar to examine the health of Maharaja Sawai Tej Singh. On November 11, 2005 itself the respondent Jitendra Pratap Singh along with several persons (about 25) entered into the house of Maharaja Sawai Tej Singh at New Delhi without serving any notice or copy of the order. Subsequently an incorrect report of medical examination was prepared and photographs so snapped were published in local news papers. The petitioner then came to know about the proceedings of suit which was posted to December 3, 2005. With a view to prevent the petitioner from appearing in court on November 3, 2005 respondent Jitendra Singh alongwith 5-8 persons entered Maharaja's house with an intention to abduct Maharaja and caused bodily harm to petitioner and her daughter. Respondent Jitendra Pratap Singh was caught red-handed by the police on the complaint lodged by Yashwant Singh, but was released. The respondent Jitendra Pratap Singh is major threat to the life and security of all the family members of the petitioner as she is looking after Maharaja Sawai Tej Singh. It is also stated in the petition that the respondent Jitendra Pratap Singh also tried to put pressure upon the lawyers at Alwar and lodged two FIRs on January 8, 2006 against Advocates Shri Amar Raj Lal, Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Shri Ajay Malviya as well as the petitioner and her family members. The events that occurred have shaken the confidence of the petitioner and she has apprehension that fair trial of suit is not possible at Alwar. Pursuant to the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Shri Jagdish Thada, Advocate was appointed guardian-ad-litem for respondent Maharaja Sawai Tej Singh. Shri Thada put up his appearance and agreed to be appointed as guardian-ad-litem. He however did not choose to file reply to the transfer petition. In the reply respondent Jitendra Pratap Singh submitted that the instant petition is the second attempt of petitioner to transfer the suit. The petition has been filed on false, frivolous and untenable grounds. In the first attempt the transfer petition (TP (C) No. 1105 of 2005) filed on behalf of Maharaja Sawai Tej Singh before the Supreme Court which was dismissed on May 8, 2006 pursuant to a report dated April 13, 2006 of the Medical Board appointed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court coming to a conclusion that the recent memory, recall, calculation, writing and overall mental state of health is impaired and that this impairment was due to various causes including prior stroke and advance age of 95 years. Even though the respondent No. 4 Maharaja Sawai Tej Singh is not capable of understanding the contents to which he was being made to sign and/ or append his signature by the petitioner and respondents No. 2&3, the respondent Jitendra Pratap Singh was constrained to file suit. This second attempt by the petitioner to have the said suit transferred out of Alwar is nothing but a blatant attempt to circumvent the order dated May 8, 2006 passed by the Supreme Court. The act of petitioner of commission and/or omission in making the respondent Maharaja Sawai Tej Singh sign all kinds of documents, the purport and content of which cannot be understood by Maharaja Sawai Tej Singh is nothing short of criminal conduct. The suit, sought to be transferred, has been filed for the benefit and/ or protection of Maharaja Sawai Tej Singh, who have been virtually kept him under house arrest, refusing access to even the respondent Jitendra Pratap Singh, who is grand son. The suit was filed because the petitioner and respondents No. 2&3 were causing the respondent Maharaja Sawai Tej Singh to sign and/ or append his signatures to documents and papers/ letters, even though the respondent Maharaja Sawai Tej Singh is not in a mental state to be able to understand the content and purport of documents. The petitioner and respondents No. 2&3 have jointly or severally caused the respondent Maharaja Sawai Tej Singh to surrender the land which was already given to respondent Jitendra Pratap Singh through registered Family Arrangement/ Settlement dated July 20, 1968, and this was the main cause of action for filing the suit. The respondent Jitendra Pratap Singh contended that the transfer petition ought not to be allowed in view of the fact that properties and lands sought to be sold/ alienated and/ or surrendered are situate at Alwar, as such the suit is maintainable at Alwar only. The allegation against Jitendra Pratap Singh of influential position and of lodging FIRs against lawyers are vague, bereft of particulars and absurd since considering the mental health of Maharaja Sawai Tej Singh Supreme Court already ordered for appointing guardian-ad-litem and the respondent Jitendra Pratap Singh being his grand son trying to safeguard the properties. If the Local Advocate of Alwar could not be engaged by the petitioner, she may engage the Advocates from Delhi or Jaipur. It is also contended that petitioner or other defendants in the suit are not required to be personally present on all dates and when they need to be present for being examined they can be examined on commission. The respondent Jitendra Pratap Singh prayed to dismiss the petition.
(3.) I have pondered over the rival submissions. Exercising powers under section 24 of the CPC is discretionary. It is always for the court to find out from the allegations so made, whether any reasonable ground is made out for transfer of the case and the court must be satisfied that good atmosphere is likely to be extended between the parties if the case is transferred reposing full confidence upon the Court of Justice. The jurisdiction under this section should be exercised with extreme care and caution and the plaintiff could not be stopped from going on when he has right of action against defendant. The search should be for justice and the Court must be satisfied that justice could more likely be done between parties by refusing to allow plaintiff to continue his suit in the forum of his choice. In transfer application it is not necessary for petitioner to prove any definite bias against the presiding Judge but it is enough if the petitioner can show that he has genuine apprehension that he would not get justice from court in which his case is pending. Where the totality of the facts and circumstances obtaining in the case and looking at the overall view of the nature of the case and convenience of the parties it would be just and reasonable to direct transfer of the suit to the other court, the suit may be transferred to other court under section 24 CPC. In Lalita Rajya Lakshmi vs. State of Bihar (AIR 1957 Patna 198) it was indicated as under:- " If there are circumstances in a case which raise a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the person applying for transfer that he would not receive fair dealings at his trial or, in other words, that he may not have a fair & impartial trial, & may get justice in the Court, where the suit is pending the case should be transferred. In such a case in order to decide whether the facts and circumstances are sufficient to raise such a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the party applying for transfer, the Court should put himself in such a party's armchair. " ;