The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to balance the motive and underlying object of seeking transfer, the lack of substantial evidence supporting allegations of bias and prejudice, and the interest of both parties and the Presiding Officer in securing a fair and impartial hearing.

JUDGMENT

1. The instant transfer application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been filed seeking transfer of Civil Suit No.56/2020 (464/2012) (26/2014), pending before the Court of Additional District Judge No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan II, Jaipur to any other court of equivalent jurisdiction, within the province of Jaipur Metropolitan II, Jaipur.

2. Applicant-plaintiff has stated that the present civil suit for declaration, possession, damages, mandatory and permanent injunction, was instituted way back in the year 2008 and wherein after filing the written statement by contesting defendants and framing of issues, both parties have adduced their complete evidence and suit reached at the stage of final hearing. At this stage, the Presiding Officer, instead of hearing and decide the suit on merits, opined that according to valuation of suit, same should be referred to civil court having lower pecuniary jurisdiction and asked the plaintiff to move an application for this purpose. When plaintiff denied to move such an application, the Presiding Officer asked the contesting defendant No.2 to move such application. Defendant No.2, thereafter, filed application on 10.08.2021 praying that the Court of Additional District Judge has no pecuniary jurisdiction to hear and decide the present suit. It may be noticed that such objection was not taken by defendant No.2 in his written statement nor at any stage before concluding of evidence. Plaintiff filed reply and opposed the application, that when no such objection was raised at the initial stage, now after completion of evidence, at the fage end of trial, such application may not be entertained. The Presiding Officer of the trial court, on application of defendants framed issue No.4(?), related to the jurisdiction and decided the same against the plaintiff vide Order dated 17.08.2021 and suit has been ordered to be returned under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC for filing before the competent court having lower pecuniary jurisdiction.

3. Plaintiff assailed the Order dated 17.08.2021 by way of filing S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1566/2021, before the High Court. Vide Order 04.01.2022, the High Court set aside the order dated 17.08.2021 and ordered to restore the present suit to its original number as also directed to dispose of the suit within a period of four months.

4. Thereafter, plaintiff moved an application under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure before the District Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan II, Jaipur, levelling some allegations against the Presiding Officer of the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan II, Jaipur, and impugned the fairness, independence and impartiality of the Presiding Officer in the matter. The allegation was that the Presiding Officer is having some remote contact/nexus with defendant No.2 and is biased with plaintiff, therefore, plaintiff has lost faith to get justice from that Court. Defendant No.2 opposed the transfer application. Learned District Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan II, Jaipur, dismissed the transfer application vide Order dated 22.03.2022. Thereafter, applicant-plaintiff has filed the present transfer application before this Court.

5. Notices of transfer application were issued to respondents. Respondent No.2 has filed reply to the transfer application and while denying grounds for seeking transfer, has prayed to dismiss the transfer application with heavy costs. Respondents No.3 & 6 have also filed reply to the transfer application.

6. During course of arguments, this Court put a query from counsel for applicant as to maintainability of this transfer application before the High Court after dismissal of his transfer application under Section 24 CPC by the District judge. Learned counsel for applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble High court of Andhra Pradesh delivered in case of Munnangi Ramakrishna Rao v. Dr. Vanankuru Venkata Siva Ramakrishan Prasad [(2003) 2 AN.W.R. 52], wherein the similar quest