Judgment :- This is an application filed by the petitioners for transfer of suit in O.S. No. 63/40 pending on the file of Sub-Judge, Sub-Court, Chengalpattu to the file of City Civil Court, Madras. 2. It is not necessary to set out extensively the allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the application or in the counter affidavit thereto. One Nawab Fazilathunnisa Begum Sahiba daughter of Nawab Walaja of Carnatic endowed certain properties at Saidapet and created a trust. This trust was with reference to a mosque located in Saiddapet One Syed Mohideen Sahib and 10 others filed a suit before the District Court, Chengalpattu in O.S. No. 63/40 for settlement of scheme for proper administration of the above trust which came to be known as “F.B. Mosque and Endowments”. The suit was decreed. As per the scheme decree, the trust has to be administered by 7 trustees appointed by Court of whom three should be from the family of the founder and the other four to be appointed by the Court from Adult Mohamedans residents of Saidapet and Madras. The period of a trustee shall be for 5 years with an option to offer himself as trustee for further period. The present application is filed for transfer of the said suit in O.S. No. 63/40. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that there is no suit pending which could be transferred under Section 24 of CPC. According to him, the suit had ended in a scheme decree and therefore, under Section 24 of C.P.C, there is no suit as such that could be withdrawn and transferred. No doubt, there is no suit as such pending in O.S. No. 63/40, in the sense that the trial of the suit filed in O.S. No. 63/40 had culminated in a scheme decree. But under the scheme decree, it is the court that is empowered to appoint certain trustees. The over all control is thus with the Court. Therefore, the Court continues to have control over the proceedings and the lis. It had not Ceased to have power nor has become functus officio . Under the scheme decree, it is only the Court that has to appoint the trustees. The trustees have to apply to the Court. The scheme decree vests with Court the power of removal of a trustee. The budget has to be submitted to the Court. It had not Ceased to have power nor has become functus officio . Under the scheme decree, it is only the Court that has to appoint the trustees. The trustees have to apply to the Court. The scheme decree vests with Court the power of removal of a trustee. The budget has to be submitted to the Court. The scheme court has power to give direction for the working of the scheme. Therefore, when an institution like this is governed by or controlled by scheme, the authority of the Court to deal with it arises from the scheme. Therefore, when the Court has still such power drawable from the scheme, then it follows that such scheme decree can be transferred from one Court to another and such powers can be equally exercised by another equal and competent Court. It will be like a executing Court to which the decree is transferred. In that scheme the matter is still pending and the passing of a decree had not brought end to the proceedings. It still has jurisdiction to decide the dispute arising between the parties or relating to the management of the trust, removal and appointment of trustees. It still has power to issue direction for the working of the scheme. The scheme decree only sets down the rules for administration, management and appointment. It has to be done in the term of the scheme decree. It has thus power of superintendence over the trust. The decree is thus alive and relevant. It has not become a spent force. Therefore, in such circumstances, even if it is not a suit, still it is a proceeding that would fall within Section 24 C.P.C. It is also to be pointed out that the Court has the power to transfer any suit, appeal or other proceedings at any stage under Section 24 C.P.C. Hence I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that Section 24 C.P.C. will not apply in such circumstances. 4. Admittedly, the properties are situate within the City of Madras. The mosque, the travellers inn, properties are only in the City. The members of the founders family and other trustees are residing within the City limits. The scheme decree provides that the four Muthawalis to be appointed shall be from adult Mohammadan residents of Saidapet and Madras. 4. Admittedly, the properties are situate within the City of Madras. The mosque, the travellers inn, properties are only in the City. The members of the founders family and other trustees are residing within the City limits. The scheme decree provides that the four Muthawalis to be appointed shall be from adult Mohammadan residents of Saidapet and Madras. At the time when the suit was filed, apparently the properties fell with in the territorial jurisdiction of Chengalpattu Court and the suit had to be filed there. Now, it is not so. 5. The trustees if they want to take out an application or seek any immediate relief under the scheme decree, they have go to necessarily all the way from the City to Chengalpattu. They have to engage an counsel at Chengalpattu. It is admitted that proceedings against tenants have been initiated only in the City Court. Thus, it will be definitely convenient and in interest of the trust to have the decree transferred to the City Civil Court. It is, in this circumstances, from the point of view of convenience, it is desirable to have the decree withdrawn and transferred to the file of City Civil Court, Madras. Such course cannot in any manner cause prejudice to the parties concerned or affect the interest of the trust. It is going to be only advantageous to all. 6. It is also to be pointed out that the transfer asked for on the ground that the petitioners apprehend that if the case is tried by the present Presiding Officer they will not get justice. In this connection, they have produced certain applications filed by them which have been returned by the Court. While he was not the regular incumbent, but was only incharge, the Sub-judge returned the applications filed by the petitioners, while application filed by another party similarly placed has been taken up and ordered by the same Judge. It is also alleged that the applications filed by the petitioners in I.A. Nos. 191 and 192 of 1997 was heard by the Sub-Judge, Chengalpattu for several days and the matter was heard finally on 21.1.99 and so far, order has not been passed. This is also cited as one of the reasons for the petitioners apprehension. It is no doubt true that in such matters, it is not possible to prove prejudice or bias. This is also cited as one of the reasons for the petitioners apprehension. It is no doubt true that in such matters, it is not possible to prove prejudice or bias. It is equally true that mere apprehension cannot be the basis for transfer. But taking into consideration, the circumstances pointed out by the learned counsel, I am of the view that it is not mere apprehension but something more, since it appears that different standard is adopted by the lower Court. For when certain applications were filed by the petitioners, the Court rejected the same outright. But an application filed by a person similarly placed has been taken on file and orders have been passed. Added to that, we have further allegation to the effect that though the application filed by the petitioners in I.A. Nos. 191 and 192/97 are heard as early as January 1999 till the filing of these applications in April 1999, no order has been passed by the learned Judge on those applications. Therefore, these two circumstances definitely add some hue. Such different standard of appreciation and treatment would definitely raised and nurse a genuine apprehension in the mind of the litigant. Therefore, it would follow that it is not mere suspicion, but something more than that. It is a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioners. It cannot be said that the petitioners apprehension that they will not get justice is a groundless one. Hence, I hold that it is necessary that the matter should be transferred. 7. Before winding up, it is necessary to point out the other contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel pointed out that the first petitioner herein is no longer a trustee, since his period had expired by December 1998 and therefore, he is not entitled to maintain this application. No doubt, the first petitioner has sworn to an affidavit! This application is filed by five persons. The affidavit is sworn to for and on behalf of other petitioners by him. As regard petitioners 2 and 5, it is not stated that they have no subsisting interest. Therefore, this argument is in my view not tenable. 8. It is also argued that when the power is vested with the Court, the petitioners have chosen to appoint a trustee and thus they are acting against the provisions of the scheme decree. As regard petitioners 2 and 5, it is not stated that they have no subsisting interest. Therefore, this argument is in my view not tenable. 8. It is also argued that when the power is vested with the Court, the petitioners have chosen to appoint a trustee and thus they are acting against the provisions of the scheme decree. This mis-conception was also entertained by the lower Court. Far, from the copy of the resolution now produced, along with the typed set, we find that the resolution is only to recommend the name of the said person for appointment as public trustee. Thus, it is a request made to the Scheme Court. Hence, it cannot be argued that the petitioners have usurped the power of the Court. 9. Therefore, on an analysis, I am of the view that the request of the petitioners for transfer is bona fide , reasonable and proper. Hence, the suit which culminated in the scheme decree in O.S. No. 63/40 pending on the file of Sub-Court, Chengalpattu is ordered to be withdrawn and then transferred to the tile of Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai (Madras), who will then have all powers of scheme Court on such transfer. Consequently, C.M.P. Nos. 7210 and 721.1 of 1999 are closed. Since the matter is now ordered to be transferred, the petitioners in C.M.P. Nos. 11584, 11585, and 11586 of 1999 are directed to move the City Civil Court for appropriate relief. No costs.