VISHWANATH, J. ( 1 ) HEARD both the Counsel. The Revision Petition involves a matter of Judicial propriety. The revision Petition is admitted. The Revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O. S. No. 3656/92 and he has challenged the order passed by the learned Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, bangalore on 7. 3. 1995 in Misc. 898 and 899/94 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to transfer the two suits in O. S. No. 3656/92 and O. S. No. 4028/92 from the file of the XX Additional City civil Judge (CCH-4) to some other Court for disposal according to law. ( 2 ) THE admitted facts are that in respect of the property involved in the above said two suits, there were proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P. C. and in those proceedings the learned Presiding officer presiding over C. C. H. 4 has admittedly given a finding that the Revision petitioner-plaintiff was not in possession. ( 3 ) IN view of the opinion expressed by the learned Judge presiding over CCH-4, the Revision petitioner-plaintiff moved the application under Section 24 C. P. C. to transfer the case to some other City Civil Court, The learned Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge rejected the application under Section 24 on the strength of a Decision of this Court reported in sangeetha S. CHUGH v. RAM NARAYAN. The facts involved in this Decision are clearly distinguishable from the facts with which we are now concerned in Section 24 application. In the case reported in AIR1995 Kant 112 , AIR1995 KAR 112 , I (1995 )DMC44 , ILR1994 KAR 3318 , 1994 (4 )Karlj696 , the matter involved was an order refusing to summon a document and this Court was pleased to hold that the order passed by the lower court refusing to summon a document was Judicial exercise of power and that cannot be a ground for transfer. This authority is distinguishable and is not applicable to the facts of the present case. ( 4 ) IT is argued by the learned Counsel for the respondent-defendant that the order is passed in a proceeding under the Criminal Code and the present suits are filed under C. P. C. This argument does not hold water because the learned Judge presiding over CCH-4 has already expressed opinion regarding possession. ( 4 ) IT is argued by the learned Counsel for the respondent-defendant that the order is passed in a proceeding under the Criminal Code and the present suits are filed under C. P. C. This argument does not hold water because the learned Judge presiding over CCH-4 has already expressed opinion regarding possession. ( 5 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons the Revision Petition is allowed and the order passed by the learned principal City Civil and Sessions Judge on 7. 3. 1995 rejecting the application under Section 24 cpc is set aside. He is directed to take the above said two suits to his file or transfer them to some other Court as he deems fit. Revision Petition is allowed as stated therein.