ORDER

1. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order annexure P-1, dated 8.8.2023 passed by the Principal District Judge, Anuppur. By the said order, the Principal District Judge rejected application of petitioner filed under section 24 (5) of the Code of Civil Procedure for transferring the pending Civil Suit No. 20-A/2021 from the Court of a particular Civil Judge, Senior Division, Anuppur to some other Court. The petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the plaintiff in the said suit.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that earlier also there was a litigation between the same parties and for executing the final judgment passed therein, execution proceedings are pending at case No. Ex. 1/2020 before the same Court. Therein the same presiding officer passed certain orders prejudicial to the interests of the present petitioner and on 24.4.2023, possession warrant was ordered to be issued against the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner submits that this order passed in execution was legally incorrect, hence, the petitioner challenged the said order in MP No. 2723/2023 wherein this Court vide order dated 12.6.2023 (Annexure P-13), stayed operation of the order dated 24.4.2023. The learned counsel further contends that this order was communicated to the learned judge on 15.6.2023, but the possession was already taken over on 12.6.2023 by the other party with police help. This fact is indicated by the order-sheets dated 15.6.2023 and 16.6.2023 (Annexure P-14). The learned counsel further contends that the learned civil judge is hurriedly proceeding ahead with the suit. In nut-shell, the sole cause for apprehension in the mind of the petitioner is that the same civil judge having earlier passed an order adverse to interest of the petitioner in some other case (execution proceedings of judgement and decree passed in a separate suit), the petitioner has lost his faith in the said civil judge.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the application under section 24 (5) was submitted on these very allegations.

4. The Principal District Judge while passing the order Annexure P-1 has rejected the application on the ground that the same judge having earlier passed some adverse order against the petitioner in some other case is not a ground to seek transfer of the present case. It has been further held that the remedy against an adverse order is to file appeal/revision/petition. Seeking transfer of other cases is not proper because imaginary and baseless mistrust cannot become a ground for seeking transfer.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

6. Transfer of cases from one Court to another is a serious matter particularly when transfer is sought by making allegations against Presiding Officer. It sometimes indirectly causes doubt on the integrity and competence of Presiding Officer of the Court from whom the matter is transferred. In cases where ground for transfer is likelihood of bias of Presiding Officer, it is onerous duty of Court to see, whether such ground has been substantiated with reasonable certainty or not. It should not be done without a proper and sufficient cause.

7. In Maneka Sanjay Gandhi v. Rani Jethmalani, (1979) Cri.L.J. 458 (SC) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has said:

Assurance of a fair trial is the first imperative of the dispensation of justice and the central criterion for the court to consider when a motion for transfer is made is not the hypersensitivity or relative convenience of a party or easy availability of legal services or like mini grievances. Something more substantial, more compelling, more imperiling, from the point of view of public justice and its attendant environment, is necessitous if the Court is to exercise its power of transfer. This is the cardinal principle although the circumstances may be myriad and vary from case to case.

8. One of the common ground which genera