Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Goshir Gyaltsab Rinpoche Tibetan Monk vs Karmapa Charitable Trust on 19 September, 2016
Bench: Jagdish Singh Khehar, Arun Mishra
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
TRANSFER PETITION(C) NO. 501 OF 2016
Goshir Gyaltsab Rinpoche Tibetan Monk ..Petitioner
versus
Karmapa Charitable Trust and others ..Respondents
O R D E R
Title Suit No. 8/2004 (Karmappa Charitable Trust and others vs. State of Sikkim and others) was pending before the learned District Judge, Special Division I, Sikkim at Gangtok. Transfer Petition(C) Nos. 194-195 of 2010 were filed before this Court seeking transfer of the above-mentioned suit from Sikkim, preferably to Delhi. The aforesaid transfer petitions were disposed of by an order dated 7.11.2012. The same is being extracted hereunder:
“1.In these transfer petitions, the petitioners have prayed, inter alia, for transfer of Title Suit No. 8/2004 (Karmappa Charitable Trust and Others v. State of Sikkim and Others) from the Court of the learned District Judge, Special Division I Sikkim at Gangtok to the court of competent jurisdiction preferably at Delhi.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and we find that one of the grounds taken in the transfer petitions in support of the prayer for transfer is that the petitioner No. 2 who is also one of the plaintiffs in the aforesaid suit is unable to pursue the suit at Gangtok in Sikkim as by an order passed by the District Magistrate at Gangtok, he has been externed from the State of Sikkim and is unable to enter into the State of Sikkim to pursue his suit as one of Signature Not Verified the plaintiffs. Digitally signed by PARVEEN KUMAR Date: 2016.09.20 17:18:16 IST
3. Mr. Ganguli, learned senior counsel appearing for Reason: respondent No. 3 vehemently submitted that besides the petitioner NO. 2, there are several other plaintiffs in the suit and this is not a sufficient ground for transfer of the suit.
2
4. We are unable to accept the submission of Mr. Ganguli. The fact remains that petitioner No. 2 is one of the plaintiffs in the suit and has interest in the outcome of the suit. Hence, in our considered opinion, the suit should be transferred from the State of Sikkim to the neighbouring State of West Bengal and in particular to the Court having appropriate jurisdiction in the District of Darjeeling. The District Judge, Darjeeling shall assign the Title Suit to an appropriate Judge competent to decide the Title Suit.
5. We make it clear that although there were prayers in the transfer petitions for transferring other proceedings, we are only transferring the aforesaid Title Suit. The District Judge at Gangtok is directed to transmit all the records pertaining to the aforesaid Title Suit to the District Judge, at Darjeeling, West Bengal, within a month of receipt of this order.
6. The Transfer Petitions stand partly allowed.” A perusal of the above order reveals, that the civil suit in question was transferred to the District Judge at Darjeeling, West Bengal. A perusal of the order, extracted hereinabove, reveals, that the primary reason which weighed with this Court, while transferring the above petitions was, that petitioner no.2 therein had been externed by the District Magistrate at Gangtok. The above factual position stands recorded in paragraphs 2 and 4 of the order, extracted above.
The instant transfer petition is the second in the series of the transfer petitions in respect of the same suit. It has been filed for re-transfer of the Title Suit No. 8 of 2014 to the District Judge at Gangtok. The solitary contention advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that the petitioner no.2 in the earlier transfer petitions, who was the reason for transferring the litigation from Gangtok to Darjeeling has since died, and as such, the solitary basis for transfer 3 expressed in the order dated 7.11.2012 does not exist any longer.
The instant petition for re-transfer has been vehemently contested by the learned counsel representing respondent nos. 1 to
3. It is the assertion of the learned counsel, that the person in question died two years ago i.e., in the year 2014, and that, the petitioner has pursued the concerned litigation at Siliguri for a period of two years without any difficulty. And therefore, the petitioner should now not be permitted to make this prayer for re-transfer to Gangtok. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents, that only 10 witnesses remain to be examined, and that, it would be unfair and unjust to transfer the matter back to Gangtok. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents, that the State Government is prejudicial to the claim of the respondents, and as such, it would not be proper for this Court to re-transfer Title Suit No. 8/2004, to Gangtok.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the various submissions advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the rival parties. We are of the view, that the submission advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the respondents to the effect, that there are only 10 remaining witnesses to be examined, may not be fully justified, inasmuch as, the same was a typographical mistake. As a matter of fact, there are indeed 152 witnesses to be examined, for the disposal of the above suit. It is also not disputed at the hands of the learned counsel for the respondents, that the solitary reason indicated in the order dated 7.11.2012, vide which the Title Suit No. 8 of 2004 was originally transferred, 4 does not subsist any more, inasmuch as, the concerned individual died in the year 2014. We are also of the view, that merely because that the concerned individual died two years ago, should not be the basis to prejudice the claim of all others who would participate in the proceedings including the 152 witnesses. We are also of the view that the contention advanced by the respondents, that the State Government was inimical to them, does not lie in the mouth of the respondents, because they have never raised such a plea for the transfer of the case out of the State.
For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we are of the view, that the prayer made in the instant transfer petition deserves to be granted. The same is accordingly allowed. The records of Title Suit No. 155/2012 (re-numbered on transfer) be transferred from the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Siliguri, West Bengal to the original jurisdictional Court, namely, the District Judge, East Sikkim at Gangtok, within four weeks from today. Parties shall appear before the learned District Judge, East Sikkim at Gangtok on 24.10.2016.
Since the matter has been pending for quite some time, we hope and expect, the trial Court would expedite the disposal of the same, as far as possible.
The instant transfer petition is allowed, in the aforesaid terms.
….....................J.
[Jagdish Singh Khehar]
New Delhi; ….....................J.
September 19, 2016. [Arun Mishra]
5
ITEM NO.7 COURT NO.3 SECTION XVIA
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Transfer Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 501/2016
GOSHIR GYALTSAB RINPOCHE TIBETAN MONK Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
KARMAPA CHARITABLE TRUST AND ORS Respondent(s)
(with appln. (s) for stay and office report) Date : 19/09/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA For Petitioner(s) Mr. K.K.Venugopal, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Arunabh Chowdhury, Adv. Mr. Anupam Lal Das,Adv.
Mr. Karma Dorjee, adv.
Mr. Vaibhav Tomar, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. K.K. Rai, Sr. Adv.
Mr. S.K. Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Awanish Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Chandrashekhar AC, Adv. Mr. Anshul Rai, Adv.
Mr. Bankey Bihari, Adv.
Mr. A. Mariarputham, AG Ms. Aruna Mathur, adv.
Mr. Yusuf Khan, Adv.
Mr. Avneesh Arputham, Adv. Ms. Anuradha Arputham, Adv. for M/s Arputham Aruna & Co.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The transfer petition is allowed in terms of the signed order.
(Renuka Sadana) (Parveen Kumar)
Assistant Registrar AR-cum-PS
[signed order is placed on the file]