The assurance of a fair trial requires substantial grounds for transfer, as mere apprehension of bias is insufficient to justify moving a case.

JUDGMENT :

HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.

1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against an order dated May 17, 2025 passed by the learned District Judge at Alipore in Misc. Case no. 148 of 2025.

2. By the order impugned, the application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure being Misc. Case No. 148 of 2025 for transfer of Ejectment Suit no 47 of 2024 was rejected.

3. The opposite parties filed a suit for recovery of possession by way of eviction, damages and mesne profits against the petitioner before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division 10^th Court at Alipore which was registered as Ejectment Suit No. 47 of 2024. At the stage of cross examination of the plaintiff witness no. 1, the petitioner filed an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure being Misc. Case no. 148 of 2025 before the learned District Judge, 24 Parganas (South) at Alipore praying for transfer of the Ejectment Suit pending before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, 10^th Court at Alipore to any other learned Court at Alipore.

4. The case made out by the petitioner in the Misc. Case for transfer of the Ejectment Suit was that when the cross examination of PW 1 resumed on April 5, 2025 the learned Judge expressed an opinion against the petitioner on the merits of the defence case. It was further alleged that the Presiding Officer did not allow the counsel of the petitioner to cross examine the PW 1 in detail. It was further stated in the said application that the conduct of the Presiding Officer created an apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that the Presiding Officer has already made up his mind to decide the suit against the petitioner and that he will not get justice in the hands of the Presiding Officer. On such grounds the petitioner prayed for transfer of the eviction suit to any other court at Alipore having jurisdiction for a fair trial.

5. The said Misc. Case for transfer of the Ejectment Suit was contested by the opposite parties by filing a written objection denying the material allegations contained in the said application for transfer. It was specifically stated in the said written objection that the petitioner attempted to cross examine the PW 1 beyond the pleadings. It was further stated therein that in order to prolong their occupation in respect of the suit property and for the purpose of delaying the eviction suit the petitioner was expanding the scope of the cross examination. It was specifically denied therein that the Presiding Officer made any statement in open Court touching upon the merits of the eviction suit. The opposite parties prayed for rejection of the prayer for transfer.

6. Mr. Tanmoy Mukherjee learned advocate appearing in support of the civil revision application contended that the petitioner has specifically stated on oath that the Presiding Officer has expressed an opinion against the petitioners touching upon the merits of the eviction suit. He further contended that a litigant has to be assured of a fair trial in the matter of dispensation of the justice. He further contended that the opinion expressed by the Presiding Officer at the time of cross examination of the PW 1 by the counsel of the petitioner gave rise to a legitimate apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that t