1 WP 3951.2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3951 OF 2011 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr. P.V.Mandlik , Sr. Counsel instructed by Mr. Amol Gandhi, Advocate for the Petitioner. .......................... CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 09/06/2011 PER COURT : 1. The present petitioner is the original defendant in a Suit instituted by the respondent/plaintiff for possession bearing Spl.Civil Suit No. 202 of 2006. During the pendency of the Suit, in one of the proceedings before the High Court, the High Court directed the trial Court to dispose of the said Suit by 30/6/2011. 2. During the pendency of the proceedings, the present petitioner moved an application U/s 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure for transfer of the Suit from the Court where the said Suit is pending to 2 WP 3951.2011 any other Court of the Civil Judge (Sr.Division). The District Judge, Nanded vide its Order dated 2/5/2011 rejected the said application. The petitioner aggrieved thereby has filed the present Writ Petition. 3. Mr. P.V. Mandlik, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial court has passed orders on various applications in haste. The petitioner had moved an application for calling record of the original Will deed from the High Court. The same was rejected by the trial court. The matter was fixed for cross examination of the witness and an adjournment application was moved by the petitioner. The same came to be rejected and no cross examination order was passed. The application ( Exh. 100) also met the same fate. According to the learned Sr. counsel, the High Court had directed that no unreasonable accommodation should be given to the parties. Calling for the original document i.e. the Will deed was not an unreasonable accommodation. The learned Judge dealing with the Suit is prejudiced against the petitioner. The orders are passed by the trial Court in a biased manner prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner. According to the learned Sr. Counsel, the apprehension in the mind of the petitioner is well founded. 3 WP 3951.2011 4. The matter can not be transferred in a casual manner. The transfer on the ground of bias casts cloud over the integrity of the Judge. The petition for transfer on such grounds can not be entertained on bald averments without any specific instances. The matter also can not be considered for transfer on the ground that the judicial orders passed by the learned Judge are passed against the petitioner. If the petitioner feels that the judicial order passed by the learned Judge is not in consonance with law, he has an opportunity to assail the said order. The District Judge has discussed about the manner in which the applications were dealt, so also conduct of the petitioner. Simply because the trial court has rejected the application of the petitioner to call for record or that when an adjournment was sought for cross examining the deponent, the same was rejected, can not be sufficient to imply bias or prejudice against the said Judge. The District Judge while rejecting the application filed by the present petitioner for transfer has given directions to the trial court to accommodate the petitioner by granting short adjournment. At the same time, to keep in mind the directions of this Court. The District Judge has also directed the parties to co- operate with the trial. 4 WP 3951.2011 5. Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure can not be invoked in such case. Mere presumptions or possible apprehension can not be a ground for transfer of case. 6. The Order passed by the District Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity. 7. In light of the above, the Writ Petition being sans any merit is dismissed, however with no order as to costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/WP 3951.2011