Judgment :- (Transfer Petition filed under Section 24(1)(b)(ii) of C.P.C to transfer C.M.A.No.36 of 2006 from the file of First Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode to any of the Subordinate Court except in Erode District, as stated therein.) This Petition filed to transfer C.M.A.No.36 of 2006 from the file of First Additional Subordinate Court, Erode to any of the Subordinate Court outside Erode District. The Plaintiff is the Petitioner. 2. The Petitioner/Plaintiff has filed a Suit in O.S.No.255 of 2006 for Declaration and Permanent Injunction. In I.A.No.588 of 2006 in O.S.No.255 of 2006, Interim Injunction was granted in favour of the Petitioner on 07.07.2006. As against the order of Interim Injunction, the Respondent / Windmill Company has filed C.M.A.No.36 of 2006 before the First Additional Subordinate Court, Erode. Alleging that the Respondent/Windmill Company has got influence over the Judicial Officers in Erode District, the Petitioner seeks transfer of C.MA.No.36 of 2006 outside Erode District. According to the Petitioner, the Respondent Company is a powerful company and having influence of Judicial Officers all over Erode District. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that as against the order passed in Tr.O.P.No.136 of 2006, the Petitioner need not file Revision and the Petitioner is at liberty to invoke Section 24 of the Act – concurrent jurisdiction of the High Court. 4. On behalf of the Respondents, narrating the various proceedings, Mr.S.V.Jayaraman, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the Transfer Petition has been filed with ulterior motive only to delay the proceedings. Learned Senior Counsel further urged that wild allegations are levelled against the Judicial Officers of all over Erode District and if any transfer is ordered, it would have serious consequences. 5. I have carefully examined the submissions on either side. The narration of facts itself would expose the frivolous nature of the Petitioner/Plaintiff. The Petitioner/Plaintiff has filed O.S.No.499 of 2005 before District Munsif Court, Dharapuram. In the said suit, in the Application for grant of Temporary Injunction, the Respondent Company has filed the Counter Affidavit and was contesting the same. In the meanwhile, the Petitioner has filed C.R.P.No.488 of 2006 and obtained a direction dated 10.03.2006 to pass an order in the Injunction Application on or before 18.04.2006. In the meantime, in the above Revision, Status Quo has been ordered to be maintained. 6. In the meanwhile, the Petitioner has filed C.R.P.No.488 of 2006 and obtained a direction dated 10.03.2006 to pass an order in the Injunction Application on or before 18.04.2006. In the meantime, in the above Revision, Status Quo has been ordered to be maintained. 6. Thereafter, making allegations against the Presiding Officer of the Trial Court – District Munsif, Dharapuram, the Petitioner has filed Tr.C.M.P.No.36 of 2006 on the file of Principal District Judge, Erode and the same was dismissed on 03.04.2006. Aggrieved against that order, the Petitioner has filed C.R.P.No.586 of 2006. Without going into the allegations against the Judicial Officer, the High Court has ordered transfer of the Suit from District Munsif Court, Dharapuram to District Munsif Court, Erode. Thereafter, the Suit was renumbered as O.S.No.255 of 2006 on the file of District Munsif Court, Erode. Temporary Interim Injunction was granted in I.A.No.588 of 2006 on 07.07.2006. Aggrieved over the same, the Respondent Company has preferred C.M.A.No.36 of 2006 before the First Additional Subordinate Court, Erode. 7. The Petitioner has filed Caveat before Subordinate Court, Erode. C.M.A.No.36 of 2006 stood adjourned for various dates for filing counter. From 10.10.2006, C.M.A. was adjourned to 20.10.2006. In the meanwhile, on 14.10.2006, the Petitioner has filed Second Transfer Petition in Transfer O.P.No.136 of 2006 before District Court, Erode making allegations against the Judicial Officer and praying for transfer of C.M.A.No.36 of 2006 to either the District Court or Fast Track Court of Erode. The said Petition was dismissed by the Principal District Judge, Erode on 10.11.2006. 8. In the Petition, the Petitioner has averred that the "Respondents openly declare that C.M.A court is of their choice even though Principal Subordinate Judge and Second Additional Subordinate Judges and Subordinate Judge, Dharapuram are having jurisdiction over the matter". According to the Petitioner, the Subordinate Judge, Dharapuram alone is having jurisdiction since the property is vested within the jurisdiction of Dharapuram Court. The averment that the First Additional Subordinate Court is a Court of Respondents choice has no substance. As against the order passed by District Munsif Court, Erode, appeal lies only before the Subordinate Court, Erode. On administrative grounds that appeal has been made over to First Additional Subordinate Court (perhaps because it is even number). The averment that the First Additional Subordinate Court is a Court of Respondents choice has no substance. As against the order passed by District Munsif Court, Erode, appeal lies only before the Subordinate Court, Erode. On administrative grounds that appeal has been made over to First Additional Subordinate Court (perhaps because it is even number). The learned Senior Counsel has submitted that once when a Suit is transferred under Section 24 C.P.C, as against the order passed by that Court, an Appeal will lie to the Court which is authorised to hear an appeal against the decision of the transferree Court and not the Subordinate Court, Dharapuram. In support of his contention, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents has drawn the attention of the Court to the synopsis of the decision of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court reported in 1994 (1) Ker.L.J. 548 (quoted in Sarkar Code of Civil Procedure – 11th Edition 2006 at Page 556), which reads as under:- "Once when a suit is transferred under Section 24 C.P.C, the Court which tries that Suit will get the Original Jurisdiction only to try the said suit. As such, he exercises the Original Jurisdiction over that suit. In that context, an appeal will have to lie to that Court, which is authorised to hear an appeal against the decision of such Court. The logical corollary that would flow from the aforesaid discussion will lead to the irresistible conclusion that it should be the same Court, which is authorised to hear the Appeal against a Judgment and Decree passed by the Transferree court." Hence, the contention of the Petitioner that the Subordinate Judge, Dharapuram alone is having the jurisdiction does not merit acceptance. 9. After the dismissal of Tr.O.P.No.136 of 2006, the Petitioner has filed this Transfer C.M.P on 16.11.2006 seeking transfer of C.M.A. to any of the courts except in Erode District. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that as against the order passed in Tr.O.P.No.136 of 2006, the Petitioner need not file Revision and the Petitioner is at liberty to invoke Section 24 of the Act – concurrent jurisdiction of the High Court. It was further submitted that non-challenging of the order passed in Tr.O.P.No.136 of 2006 is not an impediment to file this Transfer Petition. This contention does not merit acceptance. It was further submitted that non-challenging of the order passed in Tr.O.P.No.136 of 2006 is not an impediment to file this Transfer Petition. This contention does not merit acceptance. It would be improper to hold that whenever a Transfer Petition is dismissed by the District Court, the High Court can entertain a fresh Transfer C.M.P seeking transfer to any other District. Certainly that is not the intent of Section 24 C.P.C. If really the Petitioner was aggrieved over the order passed by Tr.O.P.No.136 of 2006, the Petitioner ought to have filed Revision. Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court exercises not merely the power of superintendence, but also the power of judicial control over all the inferior Courts and Tribunals. In appropriate cases where it is necessary exercising power under Article 227, the Provisions of Section 24 C.P.C may also be applied. Hence, the Petitioner is not right in contending that on dismissal of Transfer Petition by the District Court, the Petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh Transfer C.M.P in the High Court seeking transfer outside the District. 10. The Petitioner seeks transfer on the ground that the Judicial Officer is adjourning the matter in short span and compelling the Petitioner to file Counter Affidavit eventhough Status Quo order passed is in force. According to the Petitioner, it only shows bias on the part of the Presiding Officer. Refusing long adjournment is not a ground to apprehend that such party is not likely to have fair hearing before the Court. Mere whims and wishes of the party is not a ground for transferring cases. It would be a dangerous principle to transfer a case merely on the ground that the Court is declining long adjournments. 11. Another ground urged by the Petitioner is that several Advocates have also made representations regarding the integrity of the Presiding Officer. It was submitted that even the Government Pleader of Erode filed a Memo in A.S.No.52 of 2006 stating that he is not interested in contesting the case before the concerned court and the Petitioner also entertains serious doubts about the fair hearing by the Presiding Officer in C.M.A.No.36 of 2006. These doubts raised by the Petitioner was already considered by the learned Principal District Judge in Tr.O.P.No.136 of 2006, who is in charge of administration of the District. These doubts raised by the Petitioner was already considered by the learned Principal District Judge in Tr.O.P.No.136 of 2006, who is in charge of administration of the District. In any event, the circumstances under which the learned Government Pleader has sought for transfer is not known. Transfer of the case from one Court to another Court is quite a serious matter because it indirectly casts doubt on the integrity and competency of the Presiding Officer from whom the matter is transferred. Mere presumptions or possible apprehensions can not be the basis for transferring of a case from one court to another. If transfer is ordered on the ground of allegations against the officers, it would cast unjustifiable stigma on the court from which the case is sought to be transferred. The Petitioner has not made out any reasonable ground for transfer of the case either outside Erode District or within the District. 12. For the foregoing reasons, this Transfer C.M.P is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected M.P.No.1 of 2006 and V.C.M.P.No.2 of 2006 are closed.