JUDGMENT 1. - This civil revision petition under section 115 CPC is directed against the order dated 31.1.2003 of the learned District & Sessions Judge, Ajmer in Civil Misc. Application No. 16/2003 rejecting the application of the petitioner filed under section 24 CPC for transfer of Civil Original Suit No. 28/2002 pending in the Court of Addl. District Judge, Kekri to any other Court for trial. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this revision petition and necessary for its disposal are that plaintiff (petitioner herein) instituted a Civil Original Suit No. 28/2002 in the Court of Addl. District Judge, Kekri against defendants (non-petitioners herein) for partition of the property belonging to the Hindu Undivided Family. On 14.1.2003, an application under Order 8, Rule 9 and under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC came to be filed on his behalf which was fixed for orders on 15.1.2003 and the same was allowed on a cost of Rs.300/- and directed that amended plaint be filed on the same day, otherwise his right to file the amended plaint would stand forfeited. As plaintiff himself was not present in Court on that day and on this fact being brought to the notice of the Court, the case was adjourned to the following day i.e. 16.1.2003 for filing of the amended plaint. On that day also plaintiff could not appear in Court due to his own illness and when this fact was brought to the notice of the Court, the case was fixed on 17.1.2003 for filing of the amended plaint. So the petitioner apprehending that he would not get justice from the Presiding Officer of that Court, moved an application before the District Judge, Ajmer on 31.1.2003 for transfer of his above suit from that Court to some other Court with the allegations that from the manner in which the proceedings were conducted post haste in the trial Court, petitioner had reasonable apprehension that he would not get fair deal and justice from the Presiding Officer of that Court. Besides this he also alleged that on 22.1.2003 non-petitioner-Kishan Chand threatened him that he should either get the matter withdrawn by taking Rs. 2 lacs otherwise none of the advocates practising in Kekri would plead his case as he is having close relationship with the Presiding Officer, of the said Court. Besides this he also alleged that on 22.1.2003 non-petitioner-Kishan Chand threatened him that he should either get the matter withdrawn by taking Rs. 2 lacs otherwise none of the advocates practising in Kekri would plead his case as he is having close relationship with the Presiding Officer, of the said Court. His advocates Shri D.P. Agrawal and B.D. Dadhich who were appearing on his behalf also refused to conduct his case. But the learned District Judge, Ajmer rejected his aforesaid application for transfer of the suit. Hence, he has preferred this revision petition before this Court. 3. Mr. M.M. Ranjan has entered caveat on behalf of defendants-non-petitioners. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned order. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of non-petitioners has pointed out at the out-set that the Presiding Officer having been transferred from that Court, the application has become infructuous. 6. But the learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that besides aforesaid ground, other ground for seeking transfer of the suit from that Court to another Court is that the advocates practising there are not prepared to conduct his case, as non-petitioners are rich persons and have political linkage. 7. Learned counsel for non-petitioners has vehemently opposed the application on this ground as well and has submitted that the Presiding Officer being an impartial and independent judicial functionary is not normally amenable to any influence as alleged without there being any basis for the same. 8. I have considered over the rival submissions. This is not in dispute and is rather admitted fact that the Presiding Officer of the concerned Court has now been transferred from that Court to some other Court and the main ground for seeking transfer of the suit automatically vanishes and is rendered non-existent. So far as the second ground for seeking transfer of the suit is concerned, the same was also based on the allegation that non-petitioner-Kishan Chand had claimed close relationship with the Presiding Officer. Learned District Judge has not found any merit and substance in the allegation and has also not found the ground convincing for transfer of the suit from that Court to another Court and I also do not find any cogent reason to take a different view from the one taken by the Court below. Learned District Judge has not found any merit and substance in the allegation and has also not found the ground convincing for transfer of the suit from that Court to another Court and I also do not find any cogent reason to take a different view from the one taken by the Court below. It cannot be said that in rejecting the application for transfer of the suit, the Court below has committed any jurisdictional error. This apart admittedly, the suit falls within the jurisdiction of the Court of Addl. District Judge, Kekri and the non-petitioners also reside there. It would be per se unjust, unfair and unreasonable to force them to defend their case in a Court different from the Court having jurisdiction which as observed by the learned Court below has already not much work on its docket. 9. For the fore-going reasons, this revision petition having no merit and substance deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.Revision petition dismissed. *******