JUDGMENT Hon’ble Shashi Kant Gupta, J.—This revision under Section 115 of CPC is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.11.2008 passed by learned District Judge, Sitapur in Misc. Civil Case No. 150 of 2008, Akhtar v. Mathura and others, whereby the transfer application of the revisionist moved under Section 24 of CPC has been rejected. 2. The Original Suit No. 387 of 1992, Akhtar v. Mathura and others was filed by the revisionist for demolition and recovery of possession and for permanent injunction and the said suit is pending before the Civil Judge (S.D.), Sitapur. An application under Section 24 of CPC was filed by the revisionist before the District Judge, Sitapur on the allegation that Rajesh, Orderly of Sri Sunil Kumar Yadav, Civil Judge (S.D.), Sitapur before whom the suit of revisionist is pending took Rs. 50/- note from the pocket of Mohd. Aslam, general power attorney holder of the revisionist without his consent in front of the Presiding Officer and the said Orderly stated that since the Presiding Officer himself takes bribe, therefore, he has taken out the said money. It was further alleged that Mohd. Aslam power attorney holder of the revisionist himself saw the opposite party No. 1 coming out from the chamber of Sri Sunil Kumar Yadav, Civil Judge (S.D.), Sitapur, it shocked his conscious and has no hopes of any justice from him. The said application has been dismissed by the Court below. Hence this revision. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the record. 4. The District Judge, Sitapur in his impugned order has mentioned that the revisionist earlier also filed two such transfer applications wherein similar kind of allegations were made by him and it is further mentioned that when the repeated adjournment applications filed by the revisionist were rejected, the said transfer application making frivolous allegations against the Presiding Officer was filed. 5. The affidavit in support of the transfer application has not been filed by the revisionist himself but the same has been filed by his general power attorney holder Sri Mohd. Aslam. 6. The Presiding Officer also submitted his comments before the District Judge and specifically denied the allegations made by the revisionist and stated that the matter is very old and was to be decided at the earliest in view of the direction of the Hon’ble Court. Aslam. 6. The Presiding Officer also submitted his comments before the District Judge and specifically denied the allegations made by the revisionist and stated that the matter is very old and was to be decided at the earliest in view of the direction of the Hon’ble Court. It is further stated that rejection of the adjournment application prompted the revision to move the transfer application on frivolous, concocted and imaginary grounds. 7. The respondent No. 1 has also filed his objections and stated that the transfer application is absolutely misconceived, frivolous and based on concocted facts and is liable to be dismissed. 8. The matter pertains to year 1992 and is pending since last 16 years. The story of the revisionist appears to be clearly concocted and baseless. No Orderly can dare to take out the money from the pocket of the litigant in front of the Presiding Officer and that too in the presence of so many litigants and advocates. Moreover the Presiding Officer and Orderly has denied the allegations of the revisionist. 9. The history of the case shows that the revisionist is in the habit of filing such transfer applications on the frivolous grounds and is not allowing the Court below to proceed with the matter. 10. Nobody can be permitted to lower down the dignity and authority of the Courts, it has to be respected and protected at all costs. Its impartiality and the glory of law has to be maintained, protected and strengthened. The confidence in the Court of justice which the people possess cannot be allowed to be eroded. The foundation of the judiciary is the trust and confidence of the people in its ability to deliver fearless and impartial justice. Apprehension of revisionist is imaginary, without basis and not bona fide. 11. The bare perusal of the allegations made in the transfer application clearly shows that it has been filed on imaginary, concocted and frivolous grounds to scandalise the Court. Judiciary is the guardian of rule of law and central pillar of democracy. If we want judiciary to function effectively and impartially then its dignity and authority be respected and protected, otherwise the rule of law will disappear. Revisionist without any basis has attributed motives to the Court in order to seek the transfer of the case to other Court. 12. If we want judiciary to function effectively and impartially then its dignity and authority be respected and protected, otherwise the rule of law will disappear. Revisionist without any basis has attributed motives to the Court in order to seek the transfer of the case to other Court. 12. In order to discourage such tendencies it is necessary that the Court should deal with iron hands when attempts are made to scandalise the Courts and cause an injury to the judicial system by creating a wrong impression in mind of the people regarding ability, integrity and fairness of the judiciary. 13. In view of the aforesaid observations, this revision is accordingly dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs. 10,000/-. Revisionist is directed to deposit the said cost in the trial Court within two months and the amount deposited shall be remitted to Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Lucknow Bench. In case of default in depositing the money as directed above, the amount shall be recovered from the revisionist as arrears of land revenue by the Collector, Sitapur. Copy of this order be sent by registry to the District Judge, Sitapur to ensure the necessary compliance of this order. Copy of this order be also sent to the respondent No. 1 Mathura son of Late Sri Govind Prasad for necessary information. ————