JUDGMENT 1. This is an application for transfer of a case from the Sub-Divisional Officer of Ulubariah. A number of grounds have been urged before us for the transfer. It appears that disputes have been going on for sonic time with regard to the settlement of a particular chur. In the first place, it is said that a number of cases had been brought against the uncle of the Petitioner and his men in connection with these disputes, that all these cases were dismissed and in some of them at all events it was found that they were false cases instituted at the instigation of one Pundari Kaksha Hazra. These cases were disposed of before the present Sub-Divisional Magistrate came to the Sub Division. It is said that since he came, a number of other cases have been brought, some against the Petitioner's uncle and some by him against the other side. Resides the present case we find that only one case had been brought, against the uncle of the Petitioner. In that case the present Sub Divisional Officer issued summons but it was subsequently dismissed by another Magistrate. Two eases, however, were brought by the uncle of the Petitioner and both of these were dismissed by the present Sub-Divisional Officer, one of them after a Police enquiry had been held. With regard to the first case, a further inquiry has been ordered and with regard to the other, the question whether a summons should issue, is still pending. 2. In the next place, reference is made to certain other matters. An application was made on a previous occasion to another Bench of this Court. It was alleged in that application that this Sub-Divisional Magistrate bad refused, while the case was going on, to grant copies of the depositions of the witnesses for the prosecution and, further, that he had declined to recall witnesses for the prosecution under sec. 257, Or. P. C. These matters were dealt with by the Court: and, although the Court was of opinion that the Magistrate had erred in refusing to grant copies and to recall witnesses for the prosecution, it was of opinion that no sufficient ground had been made for the transfer. 3. 257, Or. P. C. These matters were dealt with by the Court: and, although the Court was of opinion that the Magistrate had erred in refusing to grant copies and to recall witnesses for the prosecution, it was of opinion that no sufficient ground had been made for the transfer. 3. This matter has again been brought forward before us mainly to show that taken along with the matters to which reference had been made, and with other matters to which reference will be made the Petitioners have now a reasonable apprehension that they will not have a fair trial. 4. The next matter relied upon is with regard to the cross examination of some of the witnesses for the prosecution. 5. It appears that various questions had been disallowed during the cross-examination and in the result the pleader who appeared for the Petitioner in this case retired from the defence, because, it is said, he felt that he was unable owing to the interference of the Court to cross-examine the witnesses effectively or in the way they ought to be cross-examined. 6. Another ground was that Pundari Kaksha Hazra was on terms of intimacy with the Sub Divisional Magistrate. 7. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate was called upon for an explanation, With regard to Pundari Kaksha Hazra, he denies that he is on terms of intimacy with him stating that he had made his acquaintance in 1900 when he was stationed in Cuttack and that he was a mere casual acquaintance. 8. As to the question of disallowing cross-examination, he has explained with regard to one out of three specific instances set out in the petition that what he did was to ask, before the question was allowed, that the pleader should show to him, how it was relevant With regard to another question, he says, that, he considered it as misleading and he suggested that another question should first be asked and that when this was done the cross-examination proceeded. With regard to the third, he explained that the answer which the pleader stated he desired to elicit, had already been given by the witness. The answer which had actually been given to this last question he refused to record and it was upon this apparently that the pleader retired from the defence. 9. With regard to the third, he explained that the answer which the pleader stated he desired to elicit, had already been given by the witness. The answer which had actually been given to this last question he refused to record and it was upon this apparently that the pleader retired from the defence. 9. We are not prepared to say that any of the circumstances which have been brought to our notice by themselves, show that there is any bias on the part of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate but we think that, having regard to all the various matters taken together which have been relied upon as grounds for a transfer, the Petitioner might not unreasonably apprehend that he might not have a fair trial. Under these circumstances, therefore, we think that it would be well that this case should be transferred from the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to the District Magistrate who may transfer it to any other Magistrate competent to try the cases. We accordingly make the rule absolute.