IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.4279 of 2010 MANJU DEVI, W/O Raj Kumar Paswan, R/o Mohalla- Bapu Nagar, Mandiri, P.S. Budha Colony, in the town and District of Patna. ---Petitioner Versus 1. Sidhnath Prasad, son of Late Mohan Lal. 2. Sanjay Kumar. 3. Chandramani Prakash, Both s/o Sidnath Prasad. 4. Meera Kumari, D/o Sidnath Prasad. 5. Reena Kumari, w/o Ramesh Prasad. All resident of North Mandiri, Bapu Nagar, P.S. Budha Colony,District-Patna. ---Opp.Parties ----------- 4. 29.3.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also the opposite parties. This application has been filed with a prayer to transfer Title Suit No.93 of 2002 from the court of the Subordinate Judge III, Patna to another court having jurisdiction to hear the aforesaid title suit in question. The ground taken by the petitioner is that after the close of evidence, the original defendant died and as such the legal representative of the petitioner was brought on the record. Thereafter an application was filed for recall of the witnesses, which was rejected vide order dated 5.8.2010. It is further submitted that against the order recalling the prayer of the petitioner for recall of the witnesses already examined, the petitioner filed a writ application in this Court vide CWJC No.15516 of 2010, which is pending for admission. The other ground, which has mainly been pressed, is that the Subordinate Judge without hearing the petitioner is fixing the date of judgment and not considering the fact that the - 2 - aforesaid writ application is pending. The petitioner had earlier filed an application for transfer of the aforesaid suit in the court of the District Judge, which was registered as Miscellaneous Transfer Petition No.181 of 2010. The same upon consideration was dismissed, vide order dated 18.6.2010, as contained in Annexure 7. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties submits that the application has been filed for delaying the disposal of the suit. As a matter of fact, after close of the evidence, arguments of the parties have also been concluded. The opposite parties have concluded their arguments and the petitioner herein has also filed her written argument. It is further submitted that the allegation of the petitioner that the court below is biased lacks any foundational facts. Considering the submissions of the parties and their respective pleadings, I do not find any justification for interfering with the matter. The allegation of bias is equally lacks material in support thereof. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the application. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. PNM (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)