Inconvenience Of Travel Not A Ground To Transfer Suit; Use Video Conferencing Or Commission For Evidence: Orissa High Court

"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... or on commission, as provided under Order 26, Rule 4 C.P.C," Orissa High Court, in a significant ruling, held that a civil suit cannot be transferred under Section 24 of the CPC merely on the grounds of physical inconvenience or the absence of a male escort.

A single-judge bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra observed that in the modern legal framework, any difficulty in attending court for the purpose of giving evidence can be mitigated through Video Conferencing or by appointing a commission.

The case involved a widow and her minor daughter (the petitioners) who sought the transfer of a civil suit from the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Salipur to Kendrapara. The suit, involving a dispute over land title and possession, was filed by the parents of the petitioner’s deceased husband. The petitioners argued that they lacked a source of income and had no male family member to accompany them to the proceedings in Salipur.

The primary question before the court was whether the personal inconvenience of a defendant residing in a different district constitutes a valid ground for the transfer of a suit involving immovable property. The court was also called upon to determine if the availability of Video Conferencing and Commission for recording evidence obviates the need for a transfer based on travel difficulties.

Suit Pertains To Right, Title, And Interest Over Land

The Court first examined the nature of the prayers in the original suit, noting that the litigation pertained to the declaration of right, title, and interest over the suit schedule land located in Salipur. It observed that the petitioners did not challenge the territorial jurisdiction of the Salipur Court to deal with the matter.

The bench emphasized that in property disputes, the location of the property and the jurisdiction of the court where the suit is filed are primary considerations. The Court found that the grounds urged by the petitioners did not warrant a departure from the established jurisdictional rules.

"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."

Defendants Represented By Counsel Need Not Attend Every Hearing

Justice Mishra clarified the procedural reality of civil litigation, stating that defendants are not required to be physically present in court for every proceeding. Since the petitioners are represented by a legal practitioner, their physical presence is not a prerequisite for the day-to-day conduct of the case.

The Court noted that the only stage where the petitioners' presence might be mandatory is when they intend to depose as defense witnesses. The bench underscored that professional representation ensures that the case continues effectively even in the absence of the parties.

"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."

Video Conferencing And Commission As Remedies For Inconvenience

The Court highlighted that any hardship related to traveling for the purpose of adducing evidence can be resolved using modern technology and existing provisions of the CPC. It specifically pointed towards the Orissa High Court Video Conferencing for Courts Rules, 2020, as a viable alternative to physical appearance.

The Court further noted that if Video Conferencing is not feasible, the petitioners could move an application under Order 26, Rule 4 of the CPC for the recording of evidence through a commission. This provision allows for the examination of witnesses who reside beyond the local limits of the court's jurisdiction or face other hardships.

"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... or on commission, as provided under Order 26, Rule 4 C.P.C."

Precedents On Transfer Of Civil Proceedings

In reaching its conclusion, the High Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Indian Overseas Bank, Madras Vs. Chemical Construction Company and others (1979) and a coordinate bench ruling in Benudhar Swain and others Vs. Nilamani Swain (2005). These precedents establish that the balance of convenience must be weighed against the overall interests of justice and jurisdictional propriety.

The Court reiterated that while Section 24 of the CPC provides discretionary power to transfer cases, such power must be exercised with caution and not merely to suit the personal convenience of one party at the cost of the other.

Final Directions And Liberty To Petitioners

While dismissing the transfer petition, the Court ensured that the petitioners were not left without recourse. It explicitly stated that the rejection of the transfer prayer would not bar the petitioners from seeking leave to be examined via Video Conferencing or via Commission before the Salipur court.

The bench concluded that the trial court must consider such applications if filed by the petitioners at the appropriate stage of the trial, ensuring that their inability to travel does not hamper their right to present a defense.

The Orissa High Court disposed of the transfer petition, holding that personal inconvenience and lack of escort are insufficient grounds for transferring a title suit. The ruling underscores the shift towards utilizing technological tools like Video Conferencing to ensure access to justice without disturbing the jurisdictional balance of civil courts.

Date of Decision: 24 April 2026