1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.3 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders Mr.R.D.Bhalerao, learned counsel for applicant. Mr.S.M.Godse, learned counsel for respondents (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 30/04/2010 1. By the present revision application, the applicant/plaintiff in RCS No.459/2008 on the file of Jt.Civil Judge, J.D. Sangamner, has moved an application for transfer of this suit u/s. 24 of The CPC, by moving Misc.Civil Application no.160/2009 before the Principal District Judge, Ahmednagar. The learned Principal District Judge, Ahmednagar has rejected the application vide order dated 03/10/2009, which order is impugned in the present civil revision application. 2. Heard learned counsel for applicant, and for respondents. Also perused the 2 impugned order dated 03/10/2009. It appears from this order that the applicant in this application has filed Reg.Civil Suit No. 459/2008 against the respondents herein for the judgment and decree of perpetual injunction, as the M.S.E.B. is erecting a tower in the agricultural land belongs to the applicant, in which he had moved an application for interim injunction. It appears that during the hearing of the application for injunction, some mis-communication took place between the counsels arguing the matter before the Trial Court and the Presiding Officer, due to which there is an apprehension in the mind of the applicant that the Trial Court is bias against him and he will not get the justice. 3. In the impugned order, in para no.5, it is observed by the learned Principal District Judge, Ahmednagar that “the only allegation made by him is that no interim relief is granted and there is undue delay.” 4. Considering these observations, there are no other allegations against the Presiding Officer i.e. Jt.Civil Judge, J.D. Sangamner 3 from whose file RCS No.459/2008 to be transferred to some other Court. 5. To consider the application u/s. 24 of The CPC, and while exercising the discretion, certain procedure require to be followed, for which the text of section require to be considered, which read as follows : “(1) On the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties, and after hearing such of them as desired to be heard, or of its own motion, without such notice the High Court or the District Court may, at any stage- (a) transfer any suit, appeal or other proceedings pending before it for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same; or (b) withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in any Court subordinate to it; and (i) try or dispose of the same; or (ii) transfer the same for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same; or (2) Where any suit or proceeding has been transferred or withdrawn under sub-section(1), the Court which (is thereafter to try or dispose of such suit or proceeding) may, subject to any special directions in the case of an order of transfer, either retry it or proceed from the point at which it was transferred or withdrawn. [(3) For the purposes of this section, (a) Courts of Additional and Assistant 4 Judges shall be deemed to be subordinate to the District Court; (b) “proceeding” includes a proceeding for the execution of a decree or order.] (4) The Court trying any suit transferred or withdrawn under this section from a Court of Small Causes shall, for the purposes of such suit, be deemed to be a Court of Small Causes. [(5) A suit or proceeding may be transferred under this section from a Court which has no jurisdiction to try it.] 6. In the light of text of Section 24 as quoted above, the fact is clear that the transfer application about the legal proceeding from the file of one court to another, such orders can not be passed on a fanciful apprehension of the litigant before the Court. If there is such fanciful apprehension in the mind of litigants, then it is very difficult for the judicial officers to work without fear and favour, otherwise there will be a flood of transfer applications, if the favourable orders are not passed by the Presiding Officer concerned. It is expected that the Presiding Officer concerned to pass the order on merits and not as per the whims of the litigants, and such practice of discouraging the Presiding Officers by filing transfer applications, require 5 to be deprecated. For the reasons stated in para no.5 of the impugned order, I did not find any perversity in the order impugned, passed by the Principal District Judge, Ahmednagar, which require interference at the hands of this Court. Civil revision application is devoid of any merit, stands rejected. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/APRIL 2010/cra-3-10