1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.2426/2008 S. Suryanarayan Naidu ...Versus... S. Laxmanswami Naidu (Dead) thr. Lr. and others -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Shri V.P Kukday, Adv. for petitioner] CORAM:- A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED :- 26.06.2008 An order dated 3.5.2008 made by the learned Principal District Judge, Nagpur, rejecting the Misc. Civil Application No.336/2008 for transfer of Civil Suit No.220/1986 from the Court of 5th Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur is under challenge in this writ petition. In support of this writ petition, Advocate Shri Kukday for the petitioner argued that the defendants to the suit are delaying the progress of the the suit which is very old. He then argued that at the fag end of the progress of the suit, the defendants filed application for amendment of written statement which 2 was allowed by the trial Court. He further argued that consequential amendment application which was filed by the petitioner was however kept pending and instead of directly allowing the same, the trial Court wanted to have say of other side on that application. He then argued that this amounts to bias against the plaintiff. He then argued that the trial Court expressed in the open Court against the interest of the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner has reasonable apprehension in mind of not getting the justice and, therefore, transfer was essential. Having heard Counsel for the petitioner and having gone through the impugned order, I find that the application for transfer that was made does not at all contain the averment or the ground that the learned trial Judge expressed anything in the Court contrary to the interest of the petitioner. There is no such pleading in that application. At any rate, the learned Counsel for the petitioner did not elaborate what was exactly expressed by the trial Court as alleged. In so far as the other grounds raised before me are concerned, in my opinion, passing of judicial orders right or wrong cannot be subject of transfer of proceedings. If a person is aggrieved by the orders, he is at liberty to challenge the 3 same before the higher Court, but merely because the trial Court allowed the amendment application filed by the respondents and prolonged the hearing of consequential amendment application in order to obtain reply of other side that cannot be ground for transfer. It is true that for the last 22 years the suit is pending in the Court below, but then that is not the issue before this Court as several Presiding Officers might have dealt with the suit. For all these reasons therefore, I do not find any substance in the present writ petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE ssw