JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was as follows :–– The matter is taken up for hearing as on the day's list and by consent of the parties it is disposed of by the following order :–– Heard the submission of the Learned Senior Advocate Mr. S. P. Roy Chowdhury appearing with Mr. J. R. Chatterjee and Mr. Badal Saha for the petitioner and Mr. Nigam Chakraborty, Learned Senior Advocate appearing with Mr. Asoke Chakraborty and Mr. Sushil Ranjan Sen. Considered the materials on record. 2. By the instant application under Section 115 of the C. P. C. the petitioner, who was the plaintiff in the suit, challenged order No.8 dated 3.1.96 passed by the Learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta, in Misc. Case No. 2624 of 1995 rejecting the prayer of the plaintiff for transfer of the case from the Court of the Learned Judge, 13th Bench of the City Civil Court. The brief conspectus silhouetted behind the present revision is that the plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration that the purported meeting to be held on the basis of the purported notice dated 22nd August, 1995, published in the Calcutta Gazette dated 22nd August, 1995, issued by the General Secretary, Calcutta Police Association, defendant No.2, is illegal, mala fide, in violation of the Rules of the Calcutta Police Association etc. etc. Permanent injunction was also prayed for and the suit was registered there in the Court of the Learned Judge, 13th Bench, City Civil Court as Title Suit No. 2989/95. In that suit, by an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the C. P. C., the plaintiff prayed for ad interim injunction. The matter was heard on 8.11.95, 10.11.95, 15.11.95, 16.11.95, 17.11.95, 21.11.95, 22.11.95, 23.11.95 and 28.11.95 and the hearing of the application was continuing. On the last date of hearing, as has been mentioned earlier, an application was moved before the Learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta which was registered there as Misc. Case No. 2624/95, praying inter alia, for transfer of the suit being Title Suit No. 2989/95 and the petition was made under Section 10 of the City Civil Court Act, under Section 24 of the C. P. C. read with Section 151 of that Code. Case No. 2624/95, praying inter alia, for transfer of the suit being Title Suit No. 2989/95 and the petition was made under Section 10 of the City Civil Court Act, under Section 24 of the C. P. C. read with Section 151 of that Code. It has been alleged in that petition, as stated in Paragraph 2, that the Learned Judge, 13th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta, is failing to appreciate the case of the petitioner, meaning the plaintiff, by not applying his mind and by making certain comments during the hearing of the case which completely breaks down morale of the plaintiff. In Paragraph 6 of the revisional application it has been alleged, inter alia, that on the first date of the hearing of the injunction petition, the Learned Judge, 13th Bench of City Civil Court, Calcutta made certain comments in the open Court before starting the argument of the plaintiff. The comments that have been made is that the Learned Judge commented that the injunction petition has no merit and that he will vacate the interim order. According to the petitioner in this revision, that gave a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that be will not get proper justice from that Court. But from the petition under Section 10 of the City Civil Court Act and Sections 24 and 151 of the C. P. C. which is an affirmed it appears that it has been alleged that the Learned Judge, 13th Bench of the City Civil Court, Calcutta, failed to appreciate the case of the plaintiff. That version is available on record that is from the order impugned. From the order impugned it appears that as no specification of the comment has been made in the petition under. Section 10 as indicated earlier, the Learned Chief Judge was pleased to ask from the appearing Advocate of the plaintiff-petitioner as to the nature of the comment that was made by the trial Judge and it was made known to the Learned Chief Judge that the comment that was made was on the basis of a query by the Learned trial Judge that "Is the post of a president an ornamental one?". The Learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta, in the impugned order found that the plaintiff-petitioner could not make out a case for transfer as no comment was made but a query or the Learned Judge was thinking aloud and no order of transfer of the case is warranted and accordingly he dismissed the application for transfer. That order is the subject matter of the revision. 3. Mr. S. P. Roy Chowdhury, Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, before opening his argument made a frank submission that the materials as has been put further before the Court about the comment of the trial Judge does not warrant any order for transfer of the case but he also submitted that since there is a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the litigant, meaning the plaintiff-petitioner herein, that he will not get fair and proper justice from the Judge concerned, it is a fit case that the case should be transferred from that Court and it should be transferred to some other Court meaning some other Judge sitting in some other Bench. In support of his submission Mr. Roy Chowdhury relied on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of (1) Pushpa Devi Saraf & Anr. v. Jai Narain Parasrampuria & Ors. reported in 1992 (2) Supreme Court Cases 676. Mr. Chakraborty on the other hand contended that though, according to the petitioner, the comment by the Learned trial Judge was made on the first date of the hearing meaning 8.11.95, the plaintiff-petitioner submitted to that by allowing the argument to be continued on so many dates thereafter as mentioned in Paragraph 5 of the revisional application and as such there is no merit in the petition of the plaintiff-petitioner for transfer of the case to some other Judge of that Court. In this connection Mr. Chakraborty referred to the application of transfer and particularly the affidavit used in connection with that petition and pointed out from there that the application was affirmed on 28th November, 1995 when the plaintiff-petitioner got a clear idea that the Learned trial Judge is going to conclude the hearing of the application for injunction and so finding no other alternative, he used the ploy for transfer of the case in order to avoid any order. The record does not indicate whether any report was called for from the Learned trial Judge by the Learned Chief Judge of the City Civil Court. It is not also available on record whether such a report was sent or any comment was made in that report. Be that as it may, from the decision reported in the case of Pushpa Devi Saraf (supra). Mr. Roy Chowdhury tried to point out that when there is a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the litigant that he will not get fair justice from the Learned Judge that is a fit case for transfer and that is the principle laid down in that decision. According to me that is not the principle that has been laid down in that decision. The fact in that case is quite different from the present one. In that case, the Learned Apex Court directed the trial Court to take up hearing of the case and to proceed day-to-day leaving aside all other cases. The case was accordingly taken up and the same was heard by the Learned Additional District Judge. In the petition under Section 24 before the Learned District Judge some questions were raised regarding the propriety and validity of certain orders made by the said Additional District Judge. A report was called for from the Additional District Judge by the District Judge and in his report the Additional District Judge justified his order which was commented upon in the petition under Section 24 and also pointed out that application amounts to contempt of Court. In this back-ground the Learned Apex Court came to the finding that in the interest of the Learned Judge the case should be transferred to another Court so that he may not be embarrassed and accordingly, the case was transferred. This is not a case like that. From the record it is not available that any report was called for or sent by the Learned Judge, or the trial Judge would not act properly or there is any question of embarrassment. According to me, it is not the question of embarrassment rather it is a ploy to avoid a Court. 4. In such circumstances, I do not find any merit in this revision and the revisional application is, accordingly, dismissed. Certified copy, if applied for be any of the parties, be given as expeditiously as possible.