The expression “balance of convenience” has inspired profound legal thought and has acquired the gloss of many judicial interpretations. Restated in simple terms it is a question of fact in each case. Balance of convenience is neither the convenience of the plaintiff alone nor of the defendant alone but the balance of convenience of both. In determining the balance of convenience for the trial of a suit the Court has to take into consideration
(1) the convenience or inconvenience of the plaintiff and the right of the plaintiff to choose his own forums
(2) the convenience or inconvenience of the defendant
(3) the convenience or inconvenience of the witnesses required for a proper trial of the suit
(4) the convenience or inconvenience of a particular place of trial having regard to the nature of the evidence on the main points involved in the suit and also having regard to the doctrine of “forum conveniens” and
(5) the nature of issues in the suit.
Refer: Calcutta High Court-Baburam Agarwalla vs Jamunadas Ramji And Co.-Â AIR 1951 Cal 239, 54 CWN 189