IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION MISC. APPLICATION NO.53 OF 2008 Mr.Roy E.Ryan and Ors. )..Applicants Versus Mr.Francis Mathew and Ors. )..Respondents ---- Mr.Mohan Pungalia i/by Mr.Abhishek Pungalia for the applicants. Francis Mathew/respondent no.1 in person with Mr.Vikas Mahangare. ---- Coram : R.S.Mohite,J Coram : R.S.Mohite,J Coram : R.S.Mohite,J Date : 17.6.2008 PC 1. Heard both sides. 2. This is an application filed under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code for transfer of Special Civil Suit No.1261 of 2006 pending in the Court of Shri D.B.Jadhav, Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, to another Court of Civil jurisdiction of Pune. It is seen that in the matter of transfer, section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code confers concurrent jurisdiction to the District Court and the High Court. It appears that earlier an application for transfer was made under Section 24 of the CPC to the District Judge, Pune. In the said application, all the contentions that were raised in the present : 2 : application were also raised. It appears that the said application was rejected after passing a reasoned order on merits on 2.5.2008. The present application has again been filed under Section 24 of CPC. Although in paragraph-7 of the application it is mentioned that an earlier application under Section 24 of CPC was rejected by the District Judge, a copy of that order was not annexed to the present application. Propriety demanded that the order of the District Judge passed under Section 24 of CPC ought to have been annexed to the application. The said order passed by the District Judge was therefore, required to be annexed in the affidavit-in-reply filed on bahalf of respondent no.1. In these circumstances, and on this ground alone, I am not inclined to entertain this application. Apart from this, I find that the allegation against the Judge in question is that he is giving short dates and has imposed cost of Rs.15,000/- in several applications which he has rejected. I am informed that the judicial order imposing cost is the subject matter of a separate challenge in the Writ petition which has just been filed in the High Court. In this view of the matter, I am not making any observation on the merits of the order imposing cost. That will be dealt with when the said Writ petition is considered. In my view, merely imposing heavy cost or giving short dates by itself cannot lead to the : 3 : conclusion that the Judge is biased. The record indicates that some of the defendants have made application for deletion of their names on the footing that they were foreign citizens. This application was rejected in February-2008 and the order of rejection has never been challenged. The said defendants filed 3 applications for stay of the suit as they wished to challenge the aforesaid order and those applications were rejected with heavy costs. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain this application. The same is rejected. The Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, is however, to take care to see that sufficient opportunity and time is given to the defendants and will bear in mind the fact that some of the defendants are foreign citizens and while giving the dates, he will bear in mind the difficulties in communication and in the giving of instructions. It is also expected that the Judge will also bear in mind the pendency in his Court and it is expected that all the matters pending before him should be given equal treatment and no impression should be created that any special treatment is given to the present suit. Subject to these directions, application stands disposed off. (R.S.Mohite,J) (R.S.Mohite,J) (R.S.Mohite,J)