Judgment :- (Petition filed under section 24 CPC to withdraw the Suit O.S.Nos.104 & 106/2004 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Erode and transfer the same to any other competent Court.) These Tr.C.M.P.S are filed to transfer O.S.Nos.104 and 106 of 2004 from the file of I Additional District Judge, Erode to some other Court of competent jurisdiction. 2. The Respondent filed suit for recovery of sum of Rs.33,69,446.56 against the Petitioner in O.S.No.119/1999 on the file of the I Additional Sub Court, Erode. Subsequently, transferred to I Additional District Court, Erode and renumbered as O.S.No.104/2004. 3. Respondent has filed O.S.No.121/1999 on the file of the I Additional Sub Court, Erode, for recovery of a sum of Rs.22,88,789.13, which was subsequently transferred to I Additional District Court, Erode and renumbered as O.S.No.106/2004. 4. Defendants seek for transfer mainly on the following three grounds :- (1) after reserving the case for Judgment on 19.07.2006, the learned Judge suo motu reopened the case and directed the Respondent/Plaintiff to file Petitions to mark the resolution, though it was the case of the Defendant that no valid resolution was passed at the time of filing the suit; (b) On 25.09.2006, when PW-2 was cross examined and after the witness gave specific answer without any ambiguity, the learned Judge has questioned the witness and filled up the lacuna; (c) The Petitioner/Defendant reliably learnt that the learned Judge has been entertaining PW-3 [Accountant of the Respondent] in his Chamber without notice to the Defendant, which has caused apprehension in the minds of the Petitioner Defendant that the learned Judge has been biased. 5. Strongly opposing the transfer Petitions, learned Counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff has drawn the attention of the Court to the multitude of proceedings filed by the Petitioners. The learned Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that the transfer Petitions are filed by the Petitioners only as dilatory tactics and cannot be ordered. 6. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that reasonable apprehension has been caused in the minds of the Petitioners that they may not have fair trial and while so, earlier Petitions filed by the Petitioners are not germane for considering this Transfer Petitions. 7. Even at the outset, it is to be pointed out that these transfer Petitions are one of the several rounds of litigations at the instance of the Petitioners. We may briefly enumerate them. 7. Even at the outset, it is to be pointed out that these transfer Petitions are one of the several rounds of litigations at the instance of the Petitioners. We may briefly enumerate them. The Petitioners have filed Tr.CMP 12439/2001 to transfer O.S.No.121/1999 from the file of the II Additional Sub Court Erode, to Sub Court, Sankagiri for trying along with O.S.No.255/1999. Tr.CMP No.12440/2001 was filed to transfer O.S.No.119/1999 from the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Erode to Sub Court, Namakkal for trying along with O.S.No.553/1999, which was pending on its file. By the Order dated 29.08.2001, this Court has ordered transfer of two suits from Sub Court Sankagiri and Sub Court Namakkal [O.S.Nos.255/99 and 553/99] to II Additional Sub Court Erode and renumbered as O.S.No.770/2001 and O.S.No.75/ 2002. The Court has made clear that the direction was restricted only for the purpose of transfer and not for joint hearing of the suits. 8. Thereafter, the Petitioners have filed Tr.C.M.P.Nos. 3391 and 3392 of 2002 seeking transfer of the suits from II Additional Sub Court, Erode to some other Court, on the ground that the trial Court did not permit the counsel for the Defendants to put necessary questions during cross examination. Observing that though there are no sufficient reasons for making an Order of transfer, the Court has ordered transfer of the suits from the file of II Additional Sub Court to I Additional Sub Court, Erode. 9. Thereafter, the Petitioners again filed Tr.C.M.P.Nos. 7758 and 7759/2002 to transfer O.S.Nos.770/2001 and 75/2002 from II Additional Sub Court, Erode to I Additional Sub Court, Erode, which were dismissed. 10. Apart from several rounds of Transfer Petitions, the Petitioners have also filed several rounds of Revision Petitions. Raising grievance regarding the examination of the witnesses, Petitioners have filed C.R.P.Nos.651 and 652 of 2003 which were also dismissed by this Court. 11. As against the dismissal of applications filed by the Defendants for summoning witnesses cited by them, the Petitioners have filed C.R.P.[P.D.] Nos.897 and 898/2005. Those Revision Petitions were allowed with certain directions. Raising objection regarding the reopening of the matter for clarification and the Court directing the Respondent/Plaintiff to file application, the Petitioner has filed yet another round of Revision Petitions in C.R.P.Nos. 1211 to 1214/2006 and those Revision Petitions were dismissed by this Court by the Order dated 30.08.2006. 12. Those Revision Petitions were allowed with certain directions. Raising objection regarding the reopening of the matter for clarification and the Court directing the Respondent/Plaintiff to file application, the Petitioner has filed yet another round of Revision Petitions in C.R.P.Nos. 1211 to 1214/2006 and those Revision Petitions were dismissed by this Court by the Order dated 30.08.2006. 12. The present Tr.C.M.P.s appear to be yet another round in the series of litigations. First ground raised, that the learned Judge has suo motu reopened and directed the Respondent to file application, was already considered by Justice Elipe Dharma Rao and the learned Judge has observed that there was no reason to interfere with the Order on that ground. The second point raised that the Presiding Officer has put questions to PW-4 cannot be the ground for transfer. Any clarification sought for by the Judge only helps the Court to clear the disputed questions in the case. If any statements are made by the Presiding Officer and when the Presiding Officer, exercising power under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, puts some questions to the witnesses for clarification, it is too much to say that the Presiding Officer has made up his mind with respect to the decision in the case. It cannot be expected that the Judges should be silent during trial without seeking any clarification. Any reasonable clarification sought for by the Court is well within the purview of Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act. The point raised by the Petitioners is not a reasonable ground for transfer. 13. The third ground raised that the Presiding Officer has entertained PW-3 - Accountant of the Respondent/ Plaintiff in his Chamber is not substantiated. Mere presumptions of possible apprehension should not be the basis of transferring the case from one Court to another. On the apprehensions and doubts of fair trial, ordering transfer of case from one Court to another is a serious matter because it casts indirectly doubt on the integrity and competency of the Presiding Officer from whom the matter is sought to be transferred. Such a power of transfer from one Court to another has to be exercised with due care and caution. Petitioners have not made out any reasonable ground for transfer. This is all the more so, when the Petitioners have initiated several rounds of litigations as part of delaying tactics. 14. Such a power of transfer from one Court to another has to be exercised with due care and caution. Petitioners have not made out any reasonable ground for transfer. This is all the more so, when the Petitioners have initiated several rounds of litigations as part of delaying tactics. 14. Transfer Petitions are dismissed with the costs of the Respondent, Plaintiff. The learned I Additional District Judge, Erode is directed to dispose of the suits O.S.Nos.104/2004 and 106/2004 pending on its file within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Consequently, C.M.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2006 are also dismissed.