57-MCA-213-2026.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 213 OF 2026 Arun Kondaji Shintre … Applicant Vs. Balwant Kondaji Shintre … Respondents since deceased through LRs Ms. Isha Hajare i/b. Ms. Sonali Chavan for the Applicant. Mr. Vishal Tambat a/w. Ms. Chaitali Bhogle and Mr. Sejal Mhaskar for the Respondents. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATE : 23rd SEPTEMBER 2026 ORDER : 1. This miscellaneous civil application is filed by the plaintiff to transfer the Special Civil Suit No. 308 of 1999 filed before the Civil Court at Nashik to the City Civil Court at Dindoshi, Mumbai. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is 80 years of age and suffers from 80% disability. She submits that in April 2026 the applicant suffered from severe pneumonia and was admitted to hospital and remained bedridden for a few days. She therefore submits that the applicant is facing hardship and 1/4 rrpillai RAJESHWARI RAMESH PILLAI Digitally signed by RAJESHWARI RAMESH PILLAI Date: 2026.09.24 18:06:21 +0530 57-MCA-213-2026.docx inconvenience to travel from Mumbai which is his place of residence to Nashik where he has filed the suit. She therefore submits that considering the age and the inconvenience caused to the applicant the suit be transferred as prayed. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that respondent no. 1 is also 80 years of age. He further submits that the suit is at the stage of recording evidence of defendant no. 1 who is 80 years of age. The applicant’s i.e. the plaintiffs’ evidence is completed. 3. The suit is for partition and separate possession of the suit property situated within the jurisdiction of the civil court of Nashik. He further submits that the applicant’s disability is much prior to the filing of the suit. Hence, the grounds raised cannot be accepted to transfer the suit when it is at the stage of recording evidence and partly the evidence is already recorded. He has relied upon copy of the roznama filed along with the reply to submit that the suit is at the stage of hearing, i.e. recording of evidence and therefore at this stage it would not be convenient to transfer the suit to a different court. 2/4 57-MCA-213-2026.docx 4. I have perused the papers of the application. There is no dispute that the applicant’s disability is of the year 1980, much prior to the suit filed by the applicant in 1999. The illness due to pneumonia was a temporary period and cannot be considered as a ground of inconvenience. The applicant’s evidence is already completed and now the suit is pending for evidence of the respondents. Hence, at this stage it would not be proper to transfer the suit to a different court. 5. The reasons mentioned for inconvenience and hardship are not any recent grounds as the applicant has filed the suit in 1999 despite the disability and the suit is now at the stage of recording evidence. Hence, the learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Kulwinder Kaur Alias Kulwinder Gurcharan Singh vs. Kandi Friends Education Trust and Others1. In view of the legal principles settled by the Apex Court the balance of convenience or inconvenience to the parties and witnesses and place of trial with regard to the nature of evidence and the issues involved in the suit, a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the litigant that he might not get justice in the court in which the suit is pending, interest of 1 (2008) 3 SCC 659 3/4 57-MCA-213-2026.docx justice may demand transfer of his suit are stated as some of the instances germane to consider the question of transfer. It is also held by the Apex Court that the discretionary power of transfer cannot be exercised within a straight jacket formula and it has to be considered with due care, caution and circumspection. 6. In the present case, there is no valid ground raised to transfer the suit. At the stage of trial when the evidence of the plaintiff is already completed and the respondents’ evidence is being recorded, it would not be in the interest of justice to transfer the suit. 7. So far as the suit property for partition is concerned, it is also situated within the jurisdiction of the court where the suit is pending. Hence, I do not see any reason to transfer the suit. 8. This is not a fit case to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) to transfer the suit. Hence, the miscellaneous civil application is dismissed. [GAURI GODSE, J.] 4/4