JUDGMENT 1. - By this petition under section 24th of the Code of Civil Procedure the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the Civil Miscellaneous Case No. 11.A of 1976 from the Court of Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur, and to transfer the same in any other subordinate court competent to try and dispose of the case. 2. The allegations on which the petition has been based may be briefly summarised as under:- The non-petitioner Shri Narendra Mal Lodha filed a petition for divorce under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act which was transferred for trial and disposal to the court of Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur. The case came up before the Additional District Judge on 13th of May, 1976. It is alleged that on that day the case was taken out of turn and arguments on the application challenging the jurisdiction of the court were heard without even giving time to the counsel for the petitioner to bring his books despite the request made in that behalf. It has been further stated that after the conclusion of the arguments on the aforesaid application the Judge had observed that in case the application is rejected he would hear the arguments on other applications as well as on issue No. 1 on the next day. Thereupon it is said that the counsel for the petitioner informed the court that in case his application is rejected he would ask for time to file revision petition against the order of the rejection of the application but the learned Judge observed that the arguments will be heard on the next day which was 14th of May, 1976. The petition goes on to state that on 14 may 1976 the case was again taken first out of turn although it was listed at a very low number. The counsel for the petitioner having come to know that the case has been taken out of turn he rushed to the court. At that time the learned Judge was pronouncing his order on the application, It is alleged that when the petitioner's counsel went through the order he submitted that the authorities cited by him did not find place in the order but the learned Judge did not pay any heed to the request. At that time the learned Judge was pronouncing his order on the application, It is alleged that when the petitioner's counsel went through the order he submitted that the authorities cited by him did not find place in the order but the learned Judge did not pay any heed to the request. At that very time the counsel for the petitioner requested for an adjournment to enable him to file revision petition against the order pronounced on that day, but his request was rejected. Thereupon an application was presented on behalf of the petitioner for grant of time so as to a table her to make an application for transfer of the whereupon the court grant 10 day's time for the purpose and the case fixed for arguments on 25th of May. 1976. The petitioner further goes o to make mention of what had transpired on 14th of May, 1976. It is said that when the counsel for the non-petitioner had read the order of learned Judge he was asked by the learned Judge as to how he found order passed by him. Thereupon it is said in the application that the counsel for the petitioner made a grievance that the general remarks in the lord have been made specially in this case. The learned Judge thereupon took exception to the observations made by the learned counsel by saying the they amounted to the contempt of the court and ordered that the High Court may he requested to take contempt proceedings against the counsel for the petitioner Mr N.M. Singhvi. The matte however was closed and the proceedings for contempt dropped when the counsel for the petitioner expressed before the learned Judge that he never intended to commit contempt of court. 3. The case then came up before the learned Judge on 25th of May, 1976, for disposing the application moved by the counsel for the non-petitioner for reviving the contempt proceedings which were dropped on 14th of May, 1975. A copy of that application was supplied to the counsel for the petitioner on the very day and he was called upon to argue on that application. On that day the counsel for the non-petitioner moved an application that as he was ill it was not possible for him to address arguments on the application. A copy of that application was supplied to the counsel for the petitioner on the very day and he was called upon to argue on that application. On that day the counsel for the non-petitioner moved an application that as he was ill it was not possible for him to address arguments on the application. The counsel for the petitioner opposed the application for adjournment and the learned Judge consequently rejected the application for adjournment and fixed the case for arguments on 27th of May, 1976. It is said that on that day while dictating the order on the application the learned Judge inquired of the counsel for the petitioner whether there was anything more to say. Thereupon it is said that the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that some facts have been wrongly stated by the court in its order whereupon the learned judge became very angry and observed that the observations made by the counsel were erroneous and that they amounted to contempt of court. It is stated that after the dictation of the order the counsel for the petitioner Mr. N.M. Singhvi had requested the court that his objection as to the misstatement of fact may be noted in the order but the learned Judge said that he could not be dictated by the counsel in the matter of drawing the order sheet. Thereupon it is said that some heat generated in the court as it appears that the lawyer had said that the court was unfair in drawing the order. The learned Judge thereupon ordered that the observations by the learned counsel amounted to contempt of court and drew an order that the High Court may be moved to take contempt proceedings against the counsel for the petitioner Mr. N.M. Singhvi and further that the order sheet dated 14th of May, 1976, may also be sent to the Hon'ble High Court for taking contempt proceedings. 4. N.M. Singhvi and further that the order sheet dated 14th of May, 1976, may also be sent to the Hon'ble High Court for taking contempt proceedings. 4. On 27 of the May, 1976, the counsel for the petitioner sent an application with another counsel for presentation of the application for adjournment on the ground that he had fallen ill on 25th and was still ill and has been advised by the doctor to take absolute rest for five days, but the court rejected the application and heard the arguments ex-parte on the application under section 24th of the Hindu Marriage Act and on issue No. 1 and other applications decided all of them against the petitioner by order dated 24th of May, 1976 and fired the case for the evidence of the non-petitioner on 15th of July, 1976. It is in the back ground of the above mentioned allegations that the petitioner has come up with this application and taken up the several grounds in support of her transfer application. 5. It is first contended that the non-petitioner No. 1 is a son of Hon'ble C.M. Lodha a former Judge of this Court and now a Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court who is very much interested in the result of the case in favour of the non-petitioner. This contention is simply stated to be rejected. Merely because the father of the non-petitioner, had been the Judge of this Court and is still the Judge of Madhya Pradesh High Court is hardly of any consequence to warrant a transfer of the case. 6. Next it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial Judge Mr. J.K. Dasani is a close friend of Mr. H.M. Lodha, the elder real brother of the non-petitioner and is, therefore, naturally biased in favour of the non-petitioner. This fact has been denied by Mr. Dasani in his explanation. Once the learned Judge has denied this act in his explanation there is no valid ground to disbelieve the explanation and accept the allegation made by the petitioner. It is a salutary principle that the court should not disbelieve the version even by the Presiding Officer of the court unless there are compelling and speaking circumstances on the record to show to the contrary. There is nothing on the record to discard the explanation of the learned trial Judge. 7. It is a salutary principle that the court should not disbelieve the version even by the Presiding Officer of the court unless there are compelling and speaking circumstances on the record to show to the contrary. There is nothing on the record to discard the explanation of the learned trial Judge. 7. It was then argued that from the various orders passed by the court between 13th of May to 25th of May, 1970, the petitioner has reasonable apprehension that she would not get fair and impartial trial in the court of Mr. Dasani. In support of this contention it was vehemently urged that an application was presented on behalf of the petitioner on 14th of May, 1976 to adjourn the case to enable the petitioner to file revision application against the order rejecting his application challenging the jurisdiction of the trial court but the application was rejected which fact showed that the learned trial Judge is biased against the petitioner. I do not see much substance in this argument. It is well to remember that in matrimonial trials it is incumbent on the trial court to dispose of the 'matrimonial matters as expeditiously as possible and not to grant adjournment as a matter of course. No valid exception therefore can be taken against the order of the learned Judge refusing the adjournment as a matter of course. I may however mention that when on 14th of May, 1976 an application was moved on behalf of the petitioner intimating the court that the petitioner would like to get the case transferred from the court, Mr. Dasani at once granted adjournment. 8. It was next contended that on 14th of May, 1976, Mr. Dasani had ordered that High Court be moved to initiate the contempt proceedings against the counsel for the petitioner which fact is sufficient to create reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner. It is difficult for me to accept this contention because this fact by itself does not necessarily lead to the inference that the Judge is biased against the petitioner. The Judge who is in charge of the regulation of the proceedings has to control the proceedings of the court in order to maintain dignify and decorum of the court proceedings. Even the proceedings initiated by Mr. The Judge who is in charge of the regulation of the proceedings has to control the proceedings of the court in order to maintain dignify and decorum of the court proceedings. Even the proceedings initiated by Mr. Dasani on that very day were dropped as soon as the learned counsel for the petitioner expressed that he never meant anything to impair the dignity of the court or in any way committed contempt of the court. The next two happenings which have been relied on behalf of the petitioner relate to the proceedings dated 15th of May and 25th of May, 1976. I have perused the proceedings of the court of those dates and I am unable to infer any bias on the part of the learned Additional District Judge against the petitioner as apprehended by her. It cannot he forgotten that the official acts are presumed to be correctly recorded unless there is cogent proof to the contrary. The proceedings had been drawn be the learned trial judge on that very day and further in view of his reassertion of those facts in his explanation I am not persuaded to accept the version of the petitioner put firth by her in this behalf in regard to the proceedings of 15th and 25th of May, 1976. From the perusal of the above Proceedings I am satisfied that there is nothing substantial to raise an inference that Mr. Dasani was biased against the petitioner so as to cause reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner. 9. Lastly it has been contended that the counsel for the petitioner was sick on 27th of May, 1976 and had sent even medical certificate in support of his illness but the learned Judge did not adjourn the case and decided some applications pending before him ex parte and so also heard arguments on issue No. 1 ex-parte and decided against the Petitioner I have persued the proceedings of 27th of May, 1976. It is true that Mr. Nauratanmal the learned counsel for the petitioner was not present on that day and had moved an application for adjournment supported by a medical certificate on the ground that he was suffering from hypertension. It is true that Mr. Nauratanmal the learned counsel for the petitioner was not present on that day and had moved an application for adjournment supported by a medical certificate on the ground that he was suffering from hypertension. This application was rejected and arguments on various applications as well as on issue No. I were heard ex parte In the order drawn on that day the learned Judge has strongly expressed against the delaying tactics on the part of the petitioner and has further lavelled the allegations made in the petition as black-mail tactics and mischievous. 10. Now the question to be judged is whether the refusal of adjournment and passing of adverse ex parte orders on the applications and issue No, i in the absence of the counsel for the petitioner in the above mentioned circumstance would lead to a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that she will not get fair trial. It is of course true that mere passing of adverse orders does not necessarily lead to an inference of bias but the fact that ex parts orders were passed on the applications and on the issued No. 1 in the absence of the counsel for the petitioner despite the fact that an application accompanied by a medical certificate was sent by the counsel for the petitioner through his duly authorised agent for adjourning the case on the ground of sickness and the same was rejected and ex parts orders made , that may reasonably give rise to the apprehension in the mind of the petitioner of a bias against her. I do not mean to say that on that account the learned Judge is actually biased against the petitioner but actual bias is not necessary. All that is necessary is that there must a basis for entertaining reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that she will not get fair and impartial trial. The learned Judge himself in his explanation has observed that if the petitioner showed lack of faith in him then it would be better to transfer the case from his court. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the pinion that the interest of justice would best be served if the case is withdrawn from the trial Judge to any other competent court. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the pinion that the interest of justice would best be served if the case is withdrawn from the trial Judge to any other competent court. I must however make it clear that this order does not mean or imply that interrain any doubts about the integrity and impartiality of Mr. Dasani the learned Additional District Judge and the fact of withdrawal of the case should not be construed to cause any adverse reflection on him in this respect. It is peculiar and special circumstance brought on the record which has persuaded me to feel that the cause of justice would be better .erred on the whole if the case is transferred to the court of Additional District Judge No. 2. Jodhpur for final disposal. 11. I must before finally closing the judgment may observe that the matrimonial proceedings are to be disposed of expeditiously and it is expected of all the parties concerned to assist the expeditious disposal of the cases so that the trial may not linger on any further on account of on red off requests for adjournment. 12. In the result I accept the transfer application and withdraw the from the court of Additional District Judge No. 1. Jodhpur, and transfer it to the court of Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur. Let the record of the trial court he sent immediately to the court of the Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur. The parties are directed to appear before the Additional District Judge No. 2. Jodhpur on 20th of September, 1976. The learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur, is directed to dispose of the case expeditiously.Order Accordingly *******