30-MCA-234-2026.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 234 OF 2026 Renushri Sachin Gharge. …Applicant Vs. Prakash Khandu Gharge. …Respondent Ms. Pooja Sanjay Phagnekar for the applicant. Mr. Sumit V. S. a/w. Mr Abhishek S. Raskar, Mr Harshavardhan K. Jadhav for the respondent. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATE : 19th AUGUST 2026 ORDER : 1. This miscellaneous civil application is filed by the original defendant no. 1, seeking transfer of the suit filed in the Pune Court to the Court at Kolhapur. The suit is filed for a declaration that the respondent is the owner of the suit property and for an injunction. The respondent, i.e. the original plaintiff, is the father-in-law of the present applicant. Defendant no. 2, who is occupying the suit property, is not made a party to the present application. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the respondent resides in Satara District and therefore, if the suit is transferred to Kolhapur, it would be convenient even for 1/5 Swapnil 30-MCA-234-2026.docx the respondent. She submits that the applicant is a widow residing in Kolhapur, and that serious hardship would be caused to her if she is required to travel from Kolhapur to Pune, which is approximately 230 km. She submits that the distance from Kolhapur to Satara, where the plaintiff resides, is hardly 123 KM. Hence, no hardship would be caused to the respondent if the suit is transferred to Kolhapur. However, the applicant would suffer greater hardship, as she would be required to travel till Pune, which is 230 km from Kolhapur, where she resides. She further submits that there was never any matrimonial dispute between the applicant and her deceased husband. However, only to cause inconvenience and harass the applicant, the father-in-law has filed the suit in court in Pune. She, therefore, submits that sufficient grounds have been made out to transfer the suit from the court at Pune to the court at Kolhapur. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent points out the averments in the suit. He submits that the cause title mentions the address in Satara, as his regular residence was there. However, the suit property is situated at Pune. He relies upon the pleadings in paragraph 27 of the plaint to 2/5 30-MCA-234-2026.docx support his submissions that the respondent has undergone a heart bypass surgery in Ruby Hall Clinic Hospital at Pune and he needs constant care and attention. He submits that since the respondent has lost his wife and son, he is required to live with his daughter who resides in Pune. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that as pleaded in the plaint, the respondent has already shifted to Pune and is residing with his daughter. He, therefore, submits that the greater inconvenience and hardship would be caused to the respondent if the suit is transferred from the court at Pune to the court at Kolhapur. He further submits that the applicant is 34 years of age and is a Doctor by profession. Hence, the ground raised regarding her inconvenience in travelling is unacceptable. He submits that the respondent is above 69 years of age and is ailing; therefore, would face greater hardship and inconvenience. 5. I have perused the plaint. Learned counsel for the respondent is right in pointing out that the respondent, who is a retired and old person, is also suffering from health issues and had already pleaded in the plaint that he would be shifting to Pune with his daughter. I do not see any reason to 3/5 30-MCA-234-2026.docx disbelieve the pleadings in the plaint. 6. So far as the applicant’s grounds of inconvenience because she is a widow cannot be entertained, as she is an independent woman of 34 years of age and only distance cannot be a ground of inconvenience. The second ground, regarding the absence of a matrimonial dispute between the applicant and her husband, is irrelevant to the prayer for transfer. Except for stating that the applicant is a widow residing in Kolhapur, there is no other ground that would require any consideration in support of the prayer for transfer. Considering that the plaintiff has shifted to Pune due to his old age and illness, the objection raised on behalf of the respondent that it would be inconvenient for the applicant to travel to Kolhapur is justified. I do not see any inconvenience or greater hardship to the applicant for transferring the suit from Pune to Kolhapur. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts, greater inconvenience and hardship would be caused to the respondent if the suit is transferred from Pune to Kolhapur. In the absence of any satisfactory and valid ground for transfer, the prayer for transfer is rejected. 4/5 30-MCA-234-2026.docx 8. For the reasons recorded above, the miscellaneous civil application is dismissed. [GAURI GODSE, J.] 5/5