JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner is a defendant in a suit pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sujangarh, District Churu. 2. On April 8, 1996, an application for setting aside ex-parte order filed by the defendant-petitioner was allowed but he was not allowed to file his written statement for the reasons recorded in the order. On August 5, 1996, the plaintiff's evidence was closed by the trial Court rejecting the prayer for adjournment made by the defendant. Against the order dated April 8, 1996, the petitioner preferred revision petition in this Court which was registered as Defect Case No. 2517/96 as it was presented 106 days beyond time. The petitioner also moved an application before the District Judge, Churu for transfer of the case from the trial Court to some other Court. The transfer application is still pending before the District Judge, Churu but the petitioner moved S.B. Civil Misc. Transfer Application No. 357/96 before this Court praying for transfer of the Transfer Petition No. 26/96 pending in the Court of District Judge, Churu to this Court. 3. S. B. Civil Revision Petition (Defect No. 2517/96 and S. B. Civil Misc. Transfer Application No. 357/96 are being decided by this common order. 4. First, the Transfer Application is taken for consideration:- 5. It is alleged by the petitioner that the District Judge, Churu on December 9, 1996 told the petitioner that since the petitioner had complained against Additional District Judge, Ratangarh Shri Mahesh Bhagwati before the Registrar Vigilance and since the case before the trial Court was fixed for arguments, the petitioner was not going to get any relief in the case. 6. To say the least, the ground for transfer is very vague and untenable. The petitioner has moved the Transfer Application without any basis and it cannot be said that he could have a reasonable apprehension that he would not get justice at the hands of the District Judge. This Transfer Application is therefore, dismissed without notice to the other side. 7. So far as the Revision Petition is concerned, it has been filed beyond limitation by 106 days. This Transfer Application is therefore, dismissed without notice to the other side. 7. So far as the Revision Petition is concerned, it has been filed beyond limitation by 106 days. In his application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the petitioner has stated that he was a poor man and had gone out from Sujangarh to Gujarat and when he came back, on contacting his Lawyer, he came to know of the Order dated April 8, 1996. The application is totally vague as to when he went to Gujarat and when he came back. Moreover, when the petitioner could file Transfer Application in the month of August 1996 before the District Judge, Churu, there is no reason why he filed this Revision Petition on December 16, 1996, four and half months after filing the Transfer Application. No case for condonation of delay is made out. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is therefore rejected. 8. In the result, the Transfer Application as well as the Revision Petition are dismissed without notice to the other side.Petition dismissed. *******