<s IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT W. P. (Art. 2271 N0. ^O^ PETITIONER DEFENDANT .^. yPj^ 'p>^:-:' - ...^ s^ Magma Fincorp Ltd., (Megma Shrachi Finance Ltd.,), Through - Branch Manager, Magma Fincorp Ltd., Chaltaniya >10'-B^ ^(^{^^€>^r^^ Nagar Krishna Kown complex, In front of -''"^'^^0^2S^° Ganga Nursing Home Jagatpur, Raigarh, Tahsil & Distt. Raigarh-(C.G.). VERSUS JasmeetSingh Bagga S/o Manjeet Singh Bagga, Aged about 20 years, Occupation - Business (Owner of: Mobile Shop) R/o Nayaganj Itwari Raigarh, Tahsil & Di-stt. Raigarh-(C.G.). 227 OF THE RESPONDENT PLAINTIFF ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (227) No. 6106 of2010 PETITIONER Defendant RESPONDENT Plauitiff Magma Fincorp. Ltd. Versus Jasmeet Singh Bagga WRTT PETTTION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSHTUTION OEIND1A CSB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Asarwal, J.) Present : Shri Sunil Otwani, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri RS Marhas, Advocate for respondent. ORALORDER (Passedon 09.03.2011) 1. The instant petition calls in question the order dated 04.08.2010 passed by the District Judge, Raigarh, in case No. 28/10, whereby the respondent's petition under Section 24 of CPC was allowed and the Civil Suit No. 36-A/10 which was pending before IIIrd Civil Judge, Class II, Raigarh, was transferred to the court ofllnd Civil Judge, Class II, Raigarh. 2. Brief facts ofthe case are that: the respoiident herein, by filing an application under Section 24 of CPC, prayed for transfer of the case from the court oflllrd Civil Jiidge, Class II, Raigarh to any other court on Ifae ground that his Advocate is not appearing in the said court as he has some reservation in appearing before the said court. ^:y ~^ -^ 3. The question therefore arises for determination of this coiirt is whether on such grounds the case can be transferred from one coiirt to other. 4. Section 24 ofCPC gives general power oftransfer to this court as well as to District Court. It is well settled law, until and unless the court is satisfied that the apprehensioii of bias or prejudice which a litigant expresses is a bona fide, an reasonable expression ofapprehension which is proved by the circiimstances and material placed by such applicant before the court where the application is moved, and application of this nature cannot be automatically ordered. 5. The transfer ofa case from one court to another indirectly casts doubt on the competence and integrity of the jiidge j&om whom the case is sought to be transferred, and therefore, merely on the whim and surmises of the parties or for the reason that the Advocate appointed by him does not want to appear in the court, the case cannot be tmnsferred fromone court to another. 6. The Supreme Court in case ofMahabir Prasad Singh v. M/s Jacks Aviation Pvt. Ltd. has held : Judicial function cannot and should not be permitted to be stonewalled by browbeatmg or bullying methodology, whether it is by litigants or by counsel. Judicial process must mn its even course unbridled by any boycott call ofthe Bar, or tactics offilibuster adopted by any member thereof. High Courts are duty bound to insulate judicial ftinctionaries AIR 1999 SC 287 ^-^^s .1' ^ within their territory from being demomlised due to such onslaughts by giving ftill protection to them to diseharge their duties withoutfear. The Supreme Court in the above case fiirther held : Change ofcourt is not allowed merely because the other side too has no objection for such change. Ofelse, it would mean that when both parties combine together they can avoid a court and get a court oftheir own choice. We are not disposed to give such an option to the parties. 7. In view ofabove, the order passed by the District Judge, Raigarh, being not sustainable in law, deserves to be and is hercby set aside. 8. Petition is accordingly allowed. District Judge, R<aigarh, is directed to retransfer the case in the same court in which it was pending before tmnsfer. Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge Sahu