Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. This batch of transfer petitions were heard analogously and disposed of by this common order. Both the petitions have been filed by the petitioner-Smt. Sheela Paul under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'the CPC') seeking transfer of civil suits pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Raigarh to any other Court of competent jurisdiction. The facts in nutshell, necessary for adjudication of these petitions, are as under:

1.1 The petitioner has filed two civil suits, i.e. Civil Suit No. 41A/2010 under Section 13(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage and Civil Suit No. 42-A/2012 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of the conjugal rights.

1.2 During pendency of the said civil suits, these transfer petitions have been filed stating inter alia that she made complaint against the Presiding Officer of the Family Court, where her cases are pending for adjudication stating inter alia that the conduct, attitude and behavior of the Presiding Officer towards her is not good, as Presiding Officer has not allowed his witness to give evidence freely and in complaint filed by her, the High Court has sought affidavit in support of the complaint and in compliance of that, she has already submitted an affidavit, and therefore, she has apprehension of bias/prejudice on the part of the Presiding Officer, therefore, aforestated two civil suits be transferred to any other Court of competent jurisdiction for hearing and disposal in accordance with law.

1.3 The respondent has entered into appearance and opposed the transfer petitions.

2. Mr. Amit Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has reasonable apprehension in her mind of not getting justice, as she has made complaint supported by an affidavit against the Presiding Officer of the Court, where aforesaid civil suits are pending consideration, therefore, there is valid and justifiable ground of transfer of her civil suits.

3. Replying the contention so raised, Mr. Abhishek Saraf, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the allegations made in the application do not make out a valid and justifiable ground for transfer, as such, the transfer petitions deserves to be rejected.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers available with the memo of transfer petitions.

5. The petitioner has made application for transfer before this Court under Section 24 of the CPC. Section 24 of the CPC reads as under:--

"24. General power of transfer and withdrawal : (1) On the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and after hearing such of them as desire 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 proceeding 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

(iii) re-transfer the same for trial or disposal to the court from which it was withdrawn.

(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 re-try it or proceed from the point at which it was transferred or withdrawn."

6. The power under Section 24 is conferred on the High Court and the District Court and the power of transfer can be exercised by these Courts at any stage either to transfer a suit or appeal pending before itself to any other Court subordinate to it and competent to try the same or to withdraw any suit or ap