- (1.) THE petitioners are permitted to rectify defect No.1. As regards defect No.2, the transfer petition is treated as such.
(2.) HEARD counsel for the petitioner. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs in the suit and they have sought a transfer of the suit on the allegation that they apprehend that they would not get justice from the Court of Subordinate Judge I, Chatra since the defendants in the suit have managed to influence the Presiding Officer to decide the same in their favour. The allegation is that one of the petitioners saw the second defendant in the suit along with another man going towards the residence of the Judicial Officer in question. The further allegation is that the second defendant handed over some money to his companion who entered the residence of the Judicial Officer and after some time when he returned from there, the petitioner heard him telling the defendant that things have been settled (Kam Ho Gaya). The petitioners had approached the District Court with an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking a transfer of the suit on these allegations. The allegations were found to be general and vague, and without any basis. It was also noticed that to order transfer of suit on such allegations would set an unhealthy precedent. Hence, the District Court dismissed the transfer petition. The very same allegations are reiterated in this fresh petition under Section 24 of the Code before this Court.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that in any event, in view of the allegations made by the petitioners, they apprehend that they would not get justice from the Presiding Officer concerned in the Title Suit. I find it difficult to appreciate this apprehension. After all a Judicial Officer is expected to discharge his duties to the best of his ability without being influenced by extraneous considerations. I am sure that the Judicial Officer concerned would not in any manner be swayed by the fact that the petitioners had moved an application for transfer of the suit by making some wild allegations in support. A Judicial Officer is expected not to be influenced by such things. It appears to me that the transfer of the suit on such vague allegations should not normally be permitted. It is not open to litigant to choose his Judge to try his case. Therefore, unless there is substantive material in support of the allegation of this nature, it would not be proper to pass an order of transfer of a suit especially when the hearing has been concluded and the pronouncement of the judgment alone remains. I am, therefore, satisfied that this application should not be allowed. It is, accordingly, dismissed.;