Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record.

2. This is an application seeking transfer of Suit No. 531 of 2008, pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ballia to any other Court in the same district.

3. It is stated that respondent No. 2 has spread a rumour in the village that suit will be decided in his favour and he will get a favourable order. It is further stated that since the Presiding Officer is biased, therefore, the case should be transferred to another Court. It is also stated that making similar allegations the applicant moved transfer application before District Judge, Ballia, which has been rejected vide order dated 24.9.2014 and on the same grounds this application has been moved. In para 4 of the affidavit applicant himself has said that respondent No. 2 is spreading a rumour in the village that suit will be decided in his favour.

4. The mere observations of Presiding Officer of the Court while hearing a case does not mean that he has made up his mind in a particular manner so as to justify an allegation of bias against such Presiding Officer and this would not justify transfer of case from one Court to another. A Judge is not expected to remain silent during course of hearing and not to express any opinion. A sphinx like attitude is not expected from a Presiding Officer. There has to be an effective discussion and effective attempt to conciliate or to clarify the misunderstanding or to get the issues clear, so that the issues can be settled or a just and proper decision can be arrived at. If in that process the Presiding Officer would make a statement it should not be misunderstood as an expression of decision. (Smt. Sangeetha S. Chugh v. Ram Narayan V. and others, AIR 1995 Karnataka 112 and Official Assignee, Madras v. Inspector-General of Registration, Bangalore and another, AIR 1981 Madras 54 or 24)

5. In one matter certain observations were made by a Judge in an earlier case. When a subsequent matter came up before him this was sought to be a ground for transfer but declined by the Court in G. Lakshmi Ammal v. Elumalai Chettiar and others, AIR 1981 Madras 24.

6. The allegations of bias of Presiding Officer, if made the basis for transfer of case, before exercising power under Section 24 C.P.C., the Court must be satisfied that the apprehension of bias or prejudice is bona fide and reasonable. The expression of apprehension, must be proved proved/substantiated by circumstances and material placed by such applicant before the Court. It cannot be taken as granted that mere allegation would be sufficient to justify transfer. In Smt. Sudha Sharma (supra) the Court observed that it is the duty of learned counsel to draft the application and made allegations with utmost care and caution. Hon’ble B.M. Lal, J. (as His Lordship then was), said:

“9. ......a foremost duty casts upon the counsel concerned while drafting and making allegations in the transfer petition against the Judge concerned with utmost care and caution, particularly in making wild allegations against the Presiding Judge. But, it appears that now-a-days it has become common feature to make allegations against the Court Presiding Judge. The counsel should realise that they are also officers of the Court. Introducing fanciful and imaginary allegations as grounds for transfer and harbouring apprehension such grounds that fair and impartial justice would not be done should always be deprecated.

10. Nonetheless, it is also important for all those who are engaged in the task of administering justice to remember that it is incumbent on them to create and maintain such confidence and atmosphere by giving every litigant an assurance by their judicial conduct that fair and impartial justice will be imparted. It is necessary to create such a confidence in the mind of the litigants so that their faith may not be shaken in Courts of law.”

7. Mere suspicion by the party that he will not get just