Judgment :- 1. This is an application by the 1st defendant in O.S. 58/1119 in the court of Temporary Second Judge, Kottayam, for transfer of the case to some other Bench. The ground relied upon for the transfer is that the judge who examined the petitioner as D.W.1 in the case wrote a remark after the petitioner signed the deposition. That remark runs thus: "This witness struck me as unscrupulous". 2. The petitioner states that he apprehends that the learned judge having made this remark in the deposition (which he had no right to do) he may not get justice at the hands of that judge. 3.O.18, R.11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1100 (Travancore) corresponding to O.18, R.12 of the Indian Code of Civil Procedure, authorises judges examining witnesses to record such remarks as they think material "respecting the demeanour of any witness while under examination". The question as to when and where these remarks have to be made and as to what matters the remarks should relate were discussed at the Bar, but no real light was thrown on the question and the Court is left to decide the matter solely by reference to the language of the said provision. The last portion "while under examination" is the only clause in the rule relating to the time for making a remark on the demeanour of the witnesses. It is therefore, clear that, in the absence of any other indication, the time for making the remark must be when the witness is under examination. The Judge would, therefore, appear to be not in order in having made the remark in the deposition after the examination was completed and after the deposition was read over to the witness and he signed the same. Except signing the deposition as one recorded by him, the judge examining a witness cannot do anything more with a deposition. Assuming he is free to make the remark at some time even after the examination is completed and the deposition is signed by him he may make it in the proceedings paper or in the judgment for what it is worth. 4. The nature of the remark is also not such as it prima facie justified by the provisions of 0.18, R.11. 4. The nature of the remark is also not such as it prima facie justified by the provisions of 0.18, R.11. It is not the subjective impression of the judge about the witness but what occasioned any such impression that is relevant under the rule, because the enquiry is not as to what judge thought about a witness, but it is as to what the demeanour of the witness was, viz., what objective features were noticed by judge while examining him. These remarks are meant for the guidance of the court of appeal when that court considers the question of the reliability of the witness. The language used is again not quite moderate. It is much to be regretted that the learned judge thought fit to introduce an unauthorised observation in a deposition giving occasion to a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that the learned judge may not, notwithstanding the evidence in the case, do justice to the petitioner. The ground on which this application for transfer is opposed by the opposite party (who wants the case to be tried and disposed of by this identical learned judge) is only the principle that it is desirable that judges examining the witnesses should dispose of the case if possible. That strengthens the apprehension in the mind of the petitioner. As has been observed by high authority on more occasions than one, the courts should not merely do justice but must appear to do so. At any rate, the courts should give no occasion at all for any apprehension that justice may not be done. 5. Under the circumstances, I consider that there is a proper case made out for transferring the case from the bench of the Temporary Additional Judge, Kottayam. The case will be transferred to the bench of the District Judge, Kottayam, for trial. There will be no order as to costs in this petition. Petition allowed.