High CourtsSingle Bench

Subhashree Sahoo & Anr vs Panchanana Sahoo & Anr

Orissa High Court · Decided on 24 April 2026 · Citation: (2026) 04 OHC CK 1483

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sanjay Kumar Mishra, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908-Section, Order 26 Rule 4
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Transfer Petition (C) No. 97 Of 2026
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

18 paragraphs · 783 words

S.K. Mishra, J

1.

Petitioner No.1, who is the widow of late Manoj Kumar Sahoo and Petitioner No.2 being the daughter, have preferred the present transfer petition for transfer of proceeding in Civil Suit No.41 of 2019 from the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Salipur in the district Cuttack to the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kendrapara.

2.

The grounds urged in the transfer petition for transfer of proceeding in Civil Suit Case No.41 of 2019 are that, after death of the husband of Petitioner No.1, she is residing in her parental house at Kendrapara with her minor daughter. She is dependent on her parents as she has no source of income. There is no male member in her family to accompany her to attend the day to day proceeding at Salipur. The Opposite Parties, who are the parents of her deceased husband, are influential persons of Salipur and she would not be able to contest the case before the Court at Salipur effectively.

3.

Admittedly, C.S. Case No.41 of 2019 has been preferred by the Opposite Party No.1 with the following prayers:-

"20. That the Plaintiff in the aforesaid circumstances has been compelled to take shelter of this Hon'ble Court and prays for the following reliefs:-

(a) Let the right, title, interest of the Plaintiff over the suit Schedule land be declared.

(b) Let the possession of the Plaintiff over the suit land be confirmed and in the evident he is found to have been dispossessed during pendency of the suit, the possession be restored to him through process of the Court.

(c) The Defendants be permanently injuncted not to interfere with the possession of the Plaintiff over the suit land in any manner whatsoever.

(d) Let cost of the suit be decreed in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants.

(e) The Plaintiff be granted any other or further relief or reliefs to which he may be found and entitled under law though not specifically prayed in the suit."

4.

As is revealed from the prayers made in the Plaint, the issue involved in the said lis is pertaining to alleged right, title, interest of the Plaintiff over the suit schedule land so also confirmation of the possession of Plaintiff over the suit land. It is not the case of the Petitioners that the Civil Court at Salipur has no territorial jurisdiction to deal with the said suit.

5.

After hearing learned Counsel for the Petitioners so also going through the pleadings made in the transfer petition, this Court is of the view that the grounds urged in the transfer petition do not deserve consideration of the prayer made by the Petitioners for transfer of C.S. Case No.41 of 2019.

6.

That apart, the Petitioners, who are the Defendants in Civil Suit No.41 of 2019, are not supposed to attend the said proceeding on each and every date, as they are represented through a lawyer. Only their presence would be required in the said proceeding, if they intend to depose as D.Ws in Civil Suit No.41 of 2019. If there is any inconvenience for them to remain physically present before the said Court for adducing evidence, they can be examined through Video Conferencing mode following due procedure prescribed under the Orissa High Court Video Conferencing for Courts Rules, 2020, or on commission, as provided under Order 26, Rule 4 C.P.C, if it is prayed so before the Court below by moving appropriate application to the said effect at the stage of trial.

7.

In a recent judgment passed in TRP(C) No.292 of 2022 (Santilata Prusty Vrs. Shibani Prusty and others), this Court, taking note of the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in Indian Overseas Bank, Madras Vs. Chemical Construction Company and others, reported in (1979) 4 SCC 358, so also coordinate Bench in Benudhar Swain and others Vs. Nilamani Swain and others, reported in 2005 (II) OLR 509, took a similar view.

8.

In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to allow the prayer made in the transfer petition.

9.

However, it is made clear that rejection of the prayer made in the Transfer Petition shall not be a bar for the Petitioners, who are the Defendants in Civil Suit No.41 of 2019, to move appropriate application before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Salipur seeking leave of the said Court to allow them to be examined through Video Conferencing mode, apart from seeking remedies under the C.P.C for recording of their evidences through Commission, if they are so advised.

10.

Accordingly, the transfer petition stands disposed of.

11.

Urgent certified copy of this judgment be granted on proper application.