( 1 ). Heard counsel for the parties.

( 2 ). Having regard to the very peculiar and special circumstances of this case, without casting any reflection on the District Judge, we think that the apprehension of the appellant that he will not get fair trial at the hands of Mr Kainthia cannot be said to be unreasonable. One of the factors that has weighed with us was that in a civil suit this very Judge had granted a huge cost of Rs. 5,000. 00 as lawyers fee and a sum of Rs. 1,500. 00 as lawyers fee in an interlocutory matter. This is a rather very extraordinary course that seems to have been adopted by the learned Judge. He may or may not be justified in this,. but if the appellant has an apprehension on this score, it cannot be said that his apprehension is not well-founded.

( 3 ). For this reason, we allow this appeal and direct that the case be transferred to the court of District and Sessions Judge, Simla. Parties aredirected to appear before him on 15/06/1981 and the appellant undertakes to appear before the Simla court on that day. In this view of the matter, the order of the High court regarding breach of under taking and issue of warrants, etc. , become otiose.