Judgment H.K. Rathod, J.—Heard Party in person Piyush @ Girish Umedbhai Patel and learned advocate Mr. CM Gandhi on behalf of respondents. 2. The present application is filed by Party in person Piyush @ Girish Umedbhai Patel on 22/8/2008 before Trial Court and same was not accepted and advised to applicant to file transfer application before High Court. Therefore, application is filed before this Court. The opponents have filed a Probate Case being No. 2959/2002 before City Civil Court, Ahmedabad. The subject matter of suit No. 234/2000 which is also pending before Civil Court, (Rural) Ahmedabad. Therefore, prayer is made to transfer Civil Suit No. 2959/2002 from City Civil Court, Bhadra to Civil Court, Mirzapur, Ahmedabad wherein Civil Suit No. 234/2000 is pending and both suits to be consolidated for hearing in the interest of justice. The party in person is present read his written arguments and pointed out to this Court that if this both suits are not decided together then it creates further complication which also wasting time of Court as well as party and almost contentions raised in both suits are covered main issue as legal fight is between family members. Therefore, in the interest of justice suit pending before City Civil Court is to be transferred to Civil Court (Rural), Mirzapur, Ahmedabad. 3. The party in person has produced copy of Civil Suit No. 234/2000 with amended copy of plaint as well as copy of interim order passed in Special Civil Suit No. 234/2000 below Exhibit 5 dated 30/11/2002. The injunction application stands partly allowed and injunction is granted against defendant to the effect that they should not sell, gift, mortgage, transfer, assign, hand over, alliniate suit property to another person in any manner whatsoever either personally or even through any of agencies made available to them and also they should not create any right, lien etc over suit properties till final disposal of suit in accordance with law. This interim order was passed on 30/11/2002. 4. In Civil Suit No. 234/2000 Hiraben wd/o Umedbhai Chhotabhai, party in person Piyush @ Girishbhai Umedbhai Patel and Ashokbhai Umedbhai Patel are plaintiff and Smt. Sushilaben Ratilal Patel, Minesh Ratilal Patel, Smt Bhumiben Kalpitbhai Patel (Zariwala) are defendant. This interim order was passed on 30/11/2002. 4. In Civil Suit No. 234/2000 Hiraben wd/o Umedbhai Chhotabhai, party in person Piyush @ Girishbhai Umedbhai Patel and Ashokbhai Umedbhai Patel are plaintiff and Smt. Sushilaben Ratilal Patel, Minesh Ratilal Patel, Smt Bhumiben Kalpitbhai Patel (Zariwala) are defendant. Thereafter, parties have been added by way of amendment Exhibit 200 on 15/7/2000 one Hiraben Umedbhai Patel and Ashok Umedbhai Patel by order dated 25/1/2001 Exhibit 104 and vide Exhibit 200, Zamzam None Trading Association, Ahmedabad and Chairman of AUDA. Thereafter, party in person has produced number of documents before Civil Court, Mirzapur. The copy of plaint in respect to Spl Civil Suit No. 2959/2002 pending before City Civil Court, Bhadra where party is Shushilaben Umedbhai Patel and Minesh Umedbhai Patel as plaintiff and Piyush @ Girish Umedbhai Patel, Shri Kasim Yasin Noor, Shah Mommaeed Noormahammed Kureshi, Farhan Yasin Noor, Sidique Ismile Mansuri, Mukhtyar Abdul Had Shaikh, Shahnawaz Noormohammed Kureshi and Ismile Ahmed Makwana are defendant. 5. Initially, application was filed u/s 278 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 which has been subsequently converted in Civil Suit No. 2959/2002 and Succession application was filed being No. 55/2001. This application was filed on 5/1/2001 presented amendment of plaint on 14/11/2003. The party in person has filed one application Annexure 4 page 71 where some relief to transfer proceeding is repeated on the basis of affidavit. The written argument was also placed on record by party in person on 30/1/2009 along with certain decisions of various High Court and Apex Court. The Schedule 1 is also annexed as Annexure 7 at page 104 which was produced in Succession application No. 55/2001 and copy of 7/12 form and also affidavit in rejoinder by party in person on record dated 6/3/2009. One additional affidavit is also filed by party in person on 10.2.2009. The amended application of Civil Suit No. 2959/2002 also produced on record where defendant have been added one Sonal @ Bhumi daughter of Umedbhai Chhotabhai Patel, Hiraben Chotalal Patel, Ashok son of Umedbhai Chhotalal Patel, Ratilal Chhotabhai Patel, Rekhaben Ratilal Patel, Kapilaben Dhirajbhai Patel, Ramaben Rajnibhai Patel, Kiritbhai Chhotalal Patel, Kamuben Dilipbhai Patel, Dilipbhai Jayantibhai Patel, Jagdishbhai Chhotabhai Patel, minor Mishal Mineshbhai Patel, minor Mihir Mineshbhai Patel by amendment in Succession application. One application was filed by party in person before City Civil Court in Succession application on 1/1/2008 based on affidavit. One application was filed by party in person before City Civil Court in Succession application on 1/1/2008 based on affidavit. Similarly, another application was filed on 7/1/2009 in Succession Application in support of that, some of decisions also placed on record. The additional affidavit of party in person is also filed on 30/3/2009 and one copy of civil suit No. 238/2009 at page 148 produced on record pending before Principal Civil Judge, (SD), Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur, Ahmedabad, where plaintiff is Sushilaben Wd/o of Umedbhai Chhotabhai Patel and Mineshkumar Umedbhai Patel and Sajeda Nazir Mohmmad Vora, Akhatarhusen Riyathusen Ansari is defendant for specific relief of receiving possession of properties dated 26/3/2009. One another suit filed by Sajeda Nazir Mohmmad Vora before same Court against Akhtarhusen Riyathusen Ansari which is also produced on record. The affidavit in reply is filed by respondents for transferring application on 18/2/2009, relevant Paras 1 to 6 are quoted as under: “1. That the present application is illegal, malafied and lacks the existence of bona fides on the part of the applicant and therefore, the application is liable to be dismissed. 2. That looking to the plaint of both the suits, the applicant has sought for the transfer and trying the two suits together. However, this relief cannot be granted and the transfer of the suit is also not called for, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. It is submitted that the Civil Suit No. 2959/2002 is pending in the Ahmedabad City Civil Court and in that suit originally application namely, Succession Certificate Application No. 55/2001 was filed and objection being taken it is converted into a regular suit. As against that the present petitioner has filed a suit for a sum of Rs. 60 Crores and the said suit is filed in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Ahmedabad (Rural), Ahmedabad. The parties to the said suit are different than the parties in the present suit. Not only that but looking to the prayers also these two suits cannot be tried together. 4. 60 Crores and the said suit is filed in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Ahmedabad (Rural), Ahmedabad. The parties to the said suit are different than the parties in the present suit. Not only that but looking to the prayers also these two suits cannot be tried together. 4. That so far as the suit pending the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Ahmedabad (Rural), Ahmedabad is concerned,a lengthy litigation is already fought out and various orders which are passed by the Honourable High Court, Ahmedabad regarding the maintenance of the property, deposit of the amount and several such orders were not complied with and ultimately, the matter was carried to the Honourable Supreme Court by the present applicant. The orders are also passed and the appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court is also disposed of and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also directed to complete the proceedings of the Civil Suit No. 2959/2002 and 2324/2000. Thus, in these circumstances, if the suit pending at Ahmedabad City Civil Court is concerned, it is of the year 2000 but converted into regular suit and therefore the same was renumbered as of 2002 suit. In the said suit issues are framed and now it is for evidence. The evidence of the present deponent is ready and at the relevant time it will be submitted for the cross examination of the other side. Under the circumstances, the witness of the Will will also be examined and the whole chapter will be over in a shot time. 5. Apart from that the properties for which the suit is pending in the Ahmedabad City Civil Court are the properties which are located within the jurisdiction of the city of Ahmedabad whereas the suit which is pending in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Ahmedabad (Rural), Ahmedabad is concerned, it is for the properties which are beyond the city of Ahmedabad. Under the circumstances, the properties situated within the jurisdiction of the Ahmedabad City Civil Court and the same jurisdiction will not be applicable for the properties outside the city of Ahmedabad and therefore also the two suits cannot be tried together. 6. Under the circumstances, the properties situated within the jurisdiction of the Ahmedabad City Civil Court and the same jurisdiction will not be applicable for the properties outside the city of Ahmedabad and therefore also the two suits cannot be tried together. 6. It is further submitted that the present deponent wanted to complete the suit pending in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Ahmedabad (Rural), Ahmedabad and on inquiry it is learnt that the said file is also not traceable and therefore, the deponent is not able to complete the record on his part. Under the circumstances, question of transfer of regular suit, which is not traceable does not arise and therefore, the present application is liable to be dismissed. A copy of order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is hereto annexed and marked as Annexure-R1 and looking to the said orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is very clear that both the suits are directed to be disposed of within a period of six months and the hearing of the suits are also expedited. Therefore, in this process there is no question of transfer and renumbering of the suits of different Courts etc., and hence the application be dismissed.” 6. The respondent has also produced on record copy of decision given by Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 904/2008 arising out of SLP (C) No. 10625/2007 dated 1/2/2008, which is quoted as under: “Leave Granted. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the High Court was not correct in allowing the sale of the entire Cinema theater at the price fixed by it during the pendency of the suit. As the suit is of the year 2000, interest of justice would be subserved if the hearing of the suit is directed to be expedited. Accordingly, we direct that the suit be taken up for hearing expeditiously and be disposed of within a period of six months. The Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmedabad (Rural) Mirzapur and the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad are also directed to complete the proceedings in C.S. Nos. 234/2004 and 2959/2002 respectively. The parties would be at liberty to approach the learned Trial Court for any interim order if any occasion arises therefor. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.” 7. In view of record produced by party in person and considering reply filed by respondent. 234/2004 and 2959/2002 respectively. The parties would be at liberty to approach the learned Trial Court for any interim order if any occasion arises therefor. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.” 7. In view of record produced by party in person and considering reply filed by respondent. The question is that there is no justification given by party in person for transferring application which is filed by him that why Suits pending in City Civil Court is required to be transferred in Civil Court, Mirzapur. I have considered prayer made in all proceeding and I have also considered that different parties are there in all proceedings as well as subject matter are also different in each proceeding. Some of parties are common but rest of parties are not common. Both Courts are situated in Ahmedabad City, party in person has not pointed out any inconvenience caused to him or witness and another difficulty before this Court. The party in person has not alleged any bias against City Civil Judge. The matter is of 2000 pending before both Court since more than nine years and inspite of having direction issued by Apex Court, proceeding is remained as it is and not completed within one year period as specified by Apex Court. The law which has been examined by Apex Court and this Court in respect to power of High Court u/s 24 in reported decisions which are quoted as under: *In case of Shilpa Hargovinddas Patel vs. Dr. Vishnubhai Chaturbhai reproted in 199. (sic) (3) GLR 2438, relevant Paras 8 and 9 are quoted as under: “8. Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, reads as under: “24. Vishnubhai Chaturbhai reproted in 199. (sic) (3) GLR 2438, relevant Paras 8 and 9 are quoted as under: “8. Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, reads as under: “24. (1) On the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and after hearing such of them as desired to be heard, or of its own motion without such notice, the High Court or the District Court may it any stage— (a) transfer any suit, appeal or other proceedings pending before it for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same, or (b) withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceedings pending in any Court subordinate to it, and (i) try or dispose of the same; or (ii) transfer the same for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same; or (iii) retransfer the same for trial or disposal to the Court from which it was withdrawn. (2) Where any suit or proceeding has been transferred or withdrawn under sub-sec. (1), the Court which is thereafter to try or dispose of such suit or proceeding may subject to any special directions in the case of an order of transfer, either re-try it or proceed from the point at which it was transferred or withdrawn..” 9. From mere reading of this provisions, I find that it is sole discretion of the Court, though a judicial discretion to transfer an appropriate case from one Court to another Court. In this section, it is not provided by the legislature that only on certain grounds, the Court has powers to transfer a case from one Court to another Court either one the application of the parties thereto or suo motu. So each case has to be considered on its own facts. One of the important considerations in the matter of transfer of the case from one Court to another Court on the application of a party thereto is that prosecuting a case at particular place may cause inconvenience and hardship to he/she or it. While considering inconvenience or hardship of a party to the litigation approaching for transfer thereof by this Court, from one Court to another Court, the corresponding injury and hardship of the other party has also to be kept in mind. While considering inconvenience or hardship of a party to the litigation approaching for transfer thereof by this Court, from one Court to another Court, the corresponding injury and hardship of the other party has also to be kept in mind. There may be other grounds on which transfer of the case from one Court to another Court by this Court either on the application of the parties thereto or suo motu may be ordered and that is where one of the parties to the litigation had any apprehension of danger to his/her life or hurt etc., from the other party to the litigation at the place where the case is pending. Yet another ground may be that where either of the parties to the litigation have apprehension that from the Court he or she or it may not get justice.” *In case of Jitendra Singh vs. Bhanu Kumari & Ors. reported in 2008 AIR SCW 5038, relevant Paras 9 is quoted as under: “9. The purpose of Section 24, CPC is merely to confer on the Court a discretionary power. A Court acting under section 24, CPC may or may not in its judicial discretion transfer a particular case. Section 24 does not prescribe any ground for ordering the transfer of a case. In certain cases it may be ordered suo motu and it may be done for administrative reasons. But when an application for transfer is made by a party, the Court is required to issue notice to the other side and hear the party before directing transfer. To put it differently the Court must act judicially in ordering a transfer on the application of a party. In the instant case the reason which has weighed with the High Court for directing transfer does not really make out a case for transfer.” *In case of Durgesh Sharma vs. Jayshree reported in 2008 (9) SCC 648 , relevant Paras 22 to 26 are quoted as under: 22. Section 24 contains general power of transfer of any suit, appeal or other proceeding at any stage on the application of a party or by a Court suo motu (of its own motion). Section 24, as originally enacted in the Code of 1908, read as under: “24. Section 24 contains general power of transfer of any suit, appeal or other proceeding at any stage on the application of a party or by a Court suo motu (of its own motion). Section 24, as originally enacted in the Code of 1908, read as under: “24. General Powers of transfer and withdrawal :— (1) on the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and after hearing such of them as desired to be heard, or of its own motion without such notice, the High Court or the District Court may at any stage – (a) transfer any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending before it for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same, or (b) Withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in any Court subordinate to it, and (i) try or dispose of the same; or (ii) transfer the same for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same; or (iii) retransfer the same for trial or disposal to the Court from which it was withdrawn. (2) Where any suit or proceeding has been transferred or withdrawn under subsection (1), the Court which (is thereafter to try or dispose of such suit or proceeding) may, subject to any special directions in the case of an order of transfer, either retry it or proceed from the point at which it was transferred or withdrawn. (3) For the purposes of this section:— (a) Courts of Additional and Assistant Judges shall be deemed to be subordinate to the District Court; (b) “proceeding” includes a proceeding for the execution of a decree or order.) (4) The Court trying any suit transferred or withdrawn under this section from a Court of Small Causes shall, for the purposes of such suit, be deemed to be a Court of Small Causes.” 23. There was a cleavage of opinion on the question whether a case could be transferred from a Court having no jurisdiction to try it. Some High Courts have held that the language of Section 24 was very wide and there was no restriction on the High Court in exercising the power of transfer merely because there was a dispute regarding jurisdiction. Some other High Courts, however, took a contrary view. Some High Courts have held that the language of Section 24 was very wide and there was no restriction on the High Court in exercising the power of transfer merely because there was a dispute regarding jurisdiction. Some other High Courts, however, took a contrary view. The Law Commission considered the question and suggested amendment that a suit or proceeding could be transferred under this section from a Court which had no jurisdiction to try it. In the Statement of Objects and Reasons, it was stated; “Clauses 10-There is a conflict of decisions with regard to the question whether Section 24 applies in relation to a transfer of a suit from a Court which has no jurisdiction to try it. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has held that the language of Section 24 is very wide and there are no restrictions or impediments in the way of the High Court exercising the power of transfer merely because there is a dispute regarding jurisdiction. Some other High Courts have taken a contrary view. It is being clarified that a case may be transferred from a Court which has no jurisdiction to try it.” Parliament considered the recommendation of the Law Commission and the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976, the section was amended in the present form. Sub-section (1) of Section 24 as now stands,- (1) on the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and after hearing such of them as desired to be heard, or of its own motion without such notice, the High Court or the District Court may at any stage - (a) transfer any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending before it for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same, or (b) Withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in any Court subordinate to it, and (i) try or dispose of the same; or (ii) transfer the same for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same; or (iii) retransfer the same for trial or disposal to the Court from which it was withdrawn. (2) Where any suit or proceeding has been transferred or withdrawn under subsection (1), the Court which (is thereafter to try or dispose of such suit or proceeding) may, subject to any special directions in the case of an order of transfer, either retry it or proceed from the point at which it was transferred or withdrawn. (3) For the purposes of this section:— (a)Courts of Additional and Assistant Judges shall be deemed to be subordinate to the District Court; (b) “proceeding” includes a proceeding for the execution of a decree or order.) (4) The Court trying any suit transferred or withdrawn under this section from a Court of Small Causes shall, for the purposes of such suit, be deemed to be a Court of Small Causes. (5) A Suit or proceeding may be transferred under this section from a Court which has no jurisdiction to try it”, enables a High Court (or a District Court) to transfer or withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending before it or in any Court subordinate to it. Such transfer can be made by the Court at any stage of the proceeding either on an application of a party or suo motu. 24. Sub-section (2) empowers the Court ordering transfer to issue directions for de novo trial or to proceed with the suit, appeal or other proceeding from the point at which it was transferred or withdrawn. 25. Sub-section (3) defines “proceeding” which includes an “execution proceeding”. It declares that the Courts of the Additional and Assistant Judges will be deemed to be subordinate of the District Court. Sub-section (4) like wise states that the expression “Court of Small Causes” includes Courts vested with the powers of a Court of Small Causes. Newly added Sub-section (5) clarifies that a suit or proceeding can be transferred from a Court which has no jurisdiction to try it.” *In case of Kulwinder Kaur alias Kulwinder Gurucharan Singh vs. Kandi friends Eduction Trust & Ors. reported in 2008 AIR SCW 748, relevant Paras 13 to 17 are quoted as under: “13. Having considered rival contentions of the parties and having gone through the proceedings of the case, we are of the view that the impugned order deserves to be set aside. reported in 2008 AIR SCW 748, relevant Paras 13 to 17 are quoted as under: “13. Having considered rival contentions of the parties and having gone through the proceedings of the case, we are of the view that the impugned order deserves to be set aside. So far as the power of transfer is concerned, Section 24 of the Code empowers a High Court or a District Court to transfer inter alia any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending before it or in any Court subordinate to it to any other Court for trial and disposal. The said provision confers comprehensive power on the Court to transfer suits, appeals or other proceedings ‘at any stage’ either on an application by any party or suo motu. 14. Although the discretionary power of transfer of cases cannot be imprisoned within a strait jacket of any cast-iron formula unanimously applicable to all situations, it cannot be gainsaid that the power to transfer a case must be exercised with due care, caution and circumspection. Reading Sections 24 and 25 of the Code together and keeping in view various judicial pronouncements, certain broad propositions as to what may constitute a ground for transfer have been laid down by Courts. They are balance of convenience or inconvenience to plaintiff or defendant or witnesses; convenience or inconvenience of a particular place of trial having regard to the nature of evidence on the points involved in the suit; issues raised by the parties, reasonable apprehension in the mind of the litigant that he might not get justice in the Court in which the suit is pending; important questions of law involved or a considerable section of public interested in the litigation, ‘interest of justice’ demanding for transfer of suit, appeal or other proceeding, etc. Above are some of the instances which are germane in considering the question of transfer of a suit, appeal or other proceeding. They are, however, illustrative in nature and by no means be treated as exhaustive. If on the above or other relevant considerations, the Court feels that the plaintiff or the defendant is not likely to have a “fair trial” in the Court from which he seeks to transfer a case, it is not only the power, but the duty of the Court to make such order. 15. If on the above or other relevant considerations, the Court feels that the plaintiff or the defendant is not likely to have a “fair trial” in the Court from which he seeks to transfer a case, it is not only the power, but the duty of the Court to make such order. 15. In Maneka Sanjay Gandhi vs. Rani Jethmalani, (1979) 2 SCR 378 , this Court stated: “Assurance of a fair trial is the first imperative of the dispensation of justice and the central criterion for the consider when a motion for transfer is made is not the hypersensitivity or relative convenience of a party or easy availability of legal services or like mini grievances. Something more substantial, more compelling, more imperiling, from the point of view of public justice and its attendant environment, is necessitous if the Court is to exercise its power of transfer. This is the cardinal principle although the circumstances may be myriad and vary supplied case to case.” 16. Similarly, in Subramaniam Swamy vs. Ramakrishna Hedge, (1990) 1 SCC 4 , dealing with power of this Court to transfer a case under Section 25 of the Code, A. M. Ahmadi, J. (As His Lordship then was) stated: “Under the old section the State Government was empowered to transfer a suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in the High Court of that State to any other High Court on receipt from the Judge trying or hearing the suit that there existed reasonable grounds for such transfer provided the State Government of the State in which the other High Court had its principal seat consented to the transfer. The present Section 25 confers the power of transfer on the Supreme Court is wide amplitude. Under the present provision the Supreme Court is empowered at any stage to transfer any suit, appeal or the proceeding from a High Court or other Civil Court in one State to a High Court or other Civil Court of another State if it is satisfied that such an order is expedient for the ends of justice. The cardinal principle for the exercise of power under this section is that the ends of justice demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. The cardinal principle for the exercise of power under this section is that the ends of justice demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. The question of expediency would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case but the paramount consideration for the exercise of power must be to meet the ends of justice. It is true that if more than one Court has jurisdiction under the Code to try the suit, the plaintiff as dominus litis has a right to choose the Court and the defendant cannot demand that the suit be tried in any particular Court convenient to him. The mere convenience of the parties or any one of them may not be enough for the exercise of power but it must also be shown that trial in the chosen forum will result in denial of justice. Cases are not unknown where a party seeking justice chooses a forum most inconvenient to the adversary with a view to depriving that party of a fair trial. The Parliament has, therefore, invested this Court with the discretion to transfer the case from one Court to another if that is considered expedient to meet the ends of justice. Words of wide amplitude for the ends of justice have been advisedly used to leave the matter to the discretion of the Apex Court as it is not possible to conceive of all situations requiring or justifying the exercise of power. But the paramount consideration must be to see that justice according to law is done; if for achieving that objective the transfer of the case is imperative, there should be no hesitation to transfer the case even if it is likely to cause some inconvenience to the plaintiff. The petitioner’s plea for the transfer of the case must be tested on this touchstone.” 17. In the case on hand, the High Court without starting anything whatsoever as to allegations and counter-allegations, without considering the reply submitted by the appellant herein and without recording any reason/ground passed the impugned order transferring the case. The learned Counsel for the contesting respondent no doubt submitted that the Court has not observed anything since observations by a High Court one way or the other might prejudice one of the parties to the suit. The learned Counsel for the contesting respondent no doubt submitted that the Court has not observed anything since observations by a High Court one way or the other might prejudice one of the parties to the suit. It is true that normally while making an order of transfer, the Court may not enter into merits of the matter as it may affect the final out come of the proceedings or cause prejudice to one or the other side. At the same time, however, an order of transfer must reflect application of mind by the Court and the circumstances which weighed in taking the action. In the instant case, it was alleged by the plaintiff that though more than three years had passed from instituting the suit, it was not disposed of and delay had been caused by the defendants as they were in office and they wanted to prolong the proceedings so that they may take undue benefit of their status. The defendants in the reply filed by them, contended that delay had not been caused by them, but it was the plaintiff who was responsible for not proceeding with the suit and was to be blamed for creation of such situation, in support of the contention, Zimni proceedings were relied upon. It was also urged that the plaintiff side could not get favourable order on applications under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code and, hence, it wanted to get the case transferred. In view of the assertion and retraction by the plaintiff and the defendants, in our considered opinion, the High Court ought to have applied its mind to those aspects and prima facie satisfied as to the grounds put forward by the plaintiff in the transfer application and ought to have passed an order one way or the other without entering into controversy in the suit. Unfortunately,the High Court allowed the application observing that it would be “appropriate” to transfer suit pending in the Court of Smt. Asha Konal, Civil Judge, (Sr. Divn), Ropar to the Court of Sh. Y.S. Rathore, Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Chandigarh. In our opinion, powers under Section 24 of the Code cannot be exercised ipse dixit in the manner in which it has been done. Only on the ground and without entering into larger issue, the appeal deserves to be allowed and is accordingly, allowed.” 8. Divn), Ropar to the Court of Sh. Y.S. Rathore, Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Chandigarh. In our opinion, powers under Section 24 of the Code cannot be exercised ipse dixit in the manner in which it has been done. Only on the ground and without entering into larger issue, the appeal deserves to be allowed and is accordingly, allowed.” 8. In view of above observations made by Apex Court and considering General Power of this Court transferring matter pending before one Court to other Court in State is very wide but this Court has to consider that by transferring matter from one Court to other Court will make inconvenience to parties or it will cause inconvenience to respondents, in respect to transfer matter, genuine cause must have to be proved by applicant. In this case, applicant has failed to justify request of transfer because different parties, different cause of action are there and both parties are situated in same City no inconvenience has been pointed out and no bias against Judge has been pointed out and respondent has objected substantive ground that it creates further complication and confusion in deciding both suits together. The suit pending in City Civil Court for cross examination of other side and witness of Will also to be examined that whole chapter can be over in short time. The party in person at the time of filing application before Apex Court was not made request to transfer case from City Civil Court, Bhadra to Civil Court, Mirzapur. After obtaining order from Apex Court, within one year matter is not over even not proceeded further and subsequently this application is filed it gives impression to this Court that party in person wants to delay matter intentionally so matter may not be examined within short time. The party in person is fighting for more than 25 years. Therefore, he is in habit to prefer number of applications before Courts and delayed matter with some ulterior purpose. The party in person interested to see that suit filed by respondent in City Civil Court in respect to Probate/Succession certificate may not be finalized as early as possible but linger it for undefinite period. Therefore, he is in habit to prefer number of applications before Courts and delayed matter with some ulterior purpose. The party in person interested to see that suit filed by respondent in City Civil Court in respect to Probate/Succession certificate may not be finalized as early as possible but linger it for undefinite period. This Court is not able to read that what is in mind of applicant party in person, but prima facie this Court is having opinion that there is no reason or justification or genuine ground has been pointed out by party in person to transfer suit in City Civil Court, Bhadra to Civil Court, Mirzapur. This Court is having discretionary jurisdiction but it should have to be exercised judicially. This Court has to consider objection raised by respondent and according to respondent if Civil Suit, pending in City Civil Court if it is transferred Civil Court Mirzapur then it creates further confusion, complication and number of legal issues will arise, which is not possible to decide within near future and there is no connection in respect to subject matter of both suits. The Civil Suit pending before City Civil Court, Bhadra dispute is to obtain succession certificate between family members. 9. So according to my opinion, considering matter entirely, there is no scope or any justification to exercise power under Section 24 of CPC for transferring pending suit from City Civil Court, Bhadra to Civil Court, Mirzapur, Ahmedabad. The party in person is not having any legal right to make such application unless compelling circumstances is to be justified otherwise it cause great injustice, prejudice and inconvenience to respondents. The party in person has filed this application as if that he is having legal right to make request to this Court to transfer proceeding from one Court to other Court but he failed to justify his request on logical (legal) ground. The party in person who is acquaintance for legal fight filed one application by another filing before different Court upto Apex Court and by this method, he is delayed matter pending before City Civil Court, Bhadra because he is deliberately make efforts to see that suit pending in City Civil Court, Bhadra may not be finalized. 10. The party in person who is acquaintance for legal fight filed one application by another filing before different Court upto Apex Court and by this method, he is delayed matter pending before City Civil Court, Bhadra because he is deliberately make efforts to see that suit pending in City Civil Court, Bhadra may not be finalized. 10. Therefore, according to my opinion, there is no substance in present application filed by party in person and there is no justification and legal and logical ground and compelling circumstances justified by party in person before this Court, therefore, present application is required to be dismissed as no substance in present application. 11. Accordingly, present application is dismissed. No order as to costs.