Supreme Court of India
SHIV KUMARI DEVENDRA OJHA versus RAMAJOR SHITLA PRASAD OJHA AND ORS.
- Decided
- 13 January 1997
- Judges listed
- K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI
- Disposal
- Disposed off
Citations
- Official
- [1997] 1 S.C.R. 214 · 1997 INSC 19
- Also cited as
- AIR 1997 SC 1036
- (1997) 2 SCC 452
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
- Not shown
- 1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
The petitioner has filed this petition for transfer of proceedings, viz., Succession Application No. 43/95 along with Misc. Application No. '23/96 titled Ramajor Shit/a Prasad Ojha & Ors. v. Shiv Kumari Devendra Ojha, pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Valsad, Gujarat to the competent court of Civil Judge at Sadar District Pratapgarh in Uttar Pradesh. We had adjourned the matter by our Order dated December 9, 1996 to find out whether the suit was still pending or stood disposed of. It is reported that the matter is still pending and the Civil Judge, Senior Division in yet to take up the matter. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has stated that the Petitioner being a lady is unable to travel from Uttar Pradesh to Valsad in Gujarat and it is a really a great difficulty for her to meet the expenditure in that behalf. Shri Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has agreed to bear the expenditure for her travel and stay whenever she attends court. Under the circumstances, we do not find that there is any justification for transferring the matter to Pratapgarh, U.P. Whenever the petitioner goes to the Court, the respondents would pay Rs. 750 (Rupees seven hundred and fifty only) on each occasion to the petitioner and the amount would be paid to her in advance. The petitioner would intimate the Civil Judge, Senior Division who would direct the respondents to pay the amount to the petitioner.
pp. 214–215, margin F
It is next contended that the petitioner had to engage her counsel from Surat since no advocate would be available at Valsad where the suit is pending. We think that the apprehension of the petitioner is not correct. The petitioner is at liberty to engage counsel at Valsad and the counsel would· give his best to the petitioner in defending her case. If the petitioner requires any financial assistance from the respondents, it would be open to her to file an application in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Valsad for this purpose and the same would be ordered by the Civil Judge. .Learned Civil Judge is directed to dispose of the application for restoration immediately and would simultaneously take up the main matter and dispose of the same expeditiously.
p. 215, margin C
The transfer petition is accordingly disposed of. T.N.A. Petition disposed of.
p. 215, margin E