ORDER In this case, the petitioner has called in question the validity of the Order No. 38/ADMN/2010, dated 10-3-2010 (Annexure-B) passed by the District and Sessions Court, Koppal, transferring O.S. No. 193 of 1992 on the file of the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Koppal, to the Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gangavathi, for disposal in accordance with law. 2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the above suit and the respondent is the defendant. The petitioner contends that the learned Counsel for the plaintiff concluded his arguments on 21-1-2010 and the learned Counsel for the defendant concluded his arguments on 23-2-2010. On 25-2-2010, Counsel for the plaintiff submitted his reply and the matter was posted for judgment on 12-3-2010. On the said date, instead of pronouncing the judgment, the Trial Court has directed the office to send the records of the case to the Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gangavathi, in terms of the order at Annexure-B passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Kappal. 3. Sri Jayavittal Rao Kolar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner contends that learned Counsel for the petitioner concluded his reply on 25-2-2010 and the case was posted to 12-3-2010 for pronouncement of the judgment. On that day, the case was transferred to the Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gangavathi, for disposal in accordance with the order passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Koppal. He further submits that the District and Sessions Judge, Kappal, has passed the order at Annexure-B suo motu without notice to the parties. When the matter is posted for judgment, nothing more to be heard in the suit. The Trial Court could have pronounced the judgment on 25-2-2010 itself or on a subsequent date. Once the matter is posted for judgment, question of transferring of the suit to some other Court does not arise. In this connection, he has relied on a decision of this Court in Rabiya Bi Kassim M. u The Country-Wide Consumer Financial Service Limited, Bangalore. 4. On the other hand, Sri K Chandranatha Ariga, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent agrees that on 25-2-2010, the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties was concluded and the matter was posted for judgment to 12-3-2010. 4. On the other hand, Sri K Chandranatha Ariga, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent agrees that on 25-2-2010, the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties was concluded and the matter was posted for judgment to 12-3-2010. He further submits that the District Judge has exercised suo motu power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure for transfer of the case from the Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Koppal to the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division). Gangavathi. He had no objection for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kappal, to pronounce the judgment. He further submits that since the District and Sessions Judge, Koppal, has passed the order in exercise of his suo motu power, the reasons may be ascertained from the concerned Court and suitable order may be passed. 5. It is not in dispute that the arguments in the suit were concluded on 25-2-2010 and the case was posted to 12-3-2010 for pronouncement of the judgment. The District and Sessions Judge, Kappal, has transferred the case from the Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Koppal, to the Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gangavathi, for disposal as per the order at Annexure-B, dated 10-3-2010. In the said order, the District and Sessions Judge, Koppal, has referred to a Demi-Official Letter No. 1/2010, dated 10-3-2010 sent by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Koppal. I have secured a copy of the said letter from the District and Sessions Judge. In the said letter, the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, has informed the District Judge that the suit O.S. No. 193 of 1992 is posted for judgment on 12-3-2010. On 9-3-2010, one of the supporters of a party to the suit made allegations against him that he has been influenced by opposite party to the suit to deliver a favourable judgment. In order to avoid such allegations and to maintain judicial propriety, he has requested the District Judge to withdraw the suit from his Court. On 9-3-2010, one of the supporters of a party to the suit made allegations against him that he has been influenced by opposite party to the suit to deliver a favourable judgment. In order to avoid such allegations and to maintain judicial propriety, he has requested the District Judge to withdraw the suit from his Court. On the basis of the said letter, the District and Sessions Judge, Koppal, has passed the order at Annexure-B transferring the suit from the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Koppal, to the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gangavathi, for disposal in accordance with law. 6. Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for the general power of transfer and withdrawal of the suit. It states that 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 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 withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in any Court subordinate to it, and try or dispose of the same or transfer the same for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same or retransfer the same for trial or disposal to the Court from which it was withdrawn. 7. It is clear from the aforesaid provision that the District Court on its own motion without notice can withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in any Court subordinate to it and transfer the same for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same at any stage. Thus, the expression "any stage" contained in sub-section (1) of Section 24 assumes importance. The language employed in Section 24 is very clear that the District Court may on its own motion, at any stage of the proceedings, transfer a suit for trial or disposal to any subordinate Court competent to try or dispose of the same. Thus, the expression "any stage" contained in sub-section (1) of Section 24 assumes importance. The language employed in Section 24 is very clear that the District Court may on its own motion, at any stage of the proceedings, transfer a suit for trial or disposal to any subordinate Court competent to try or dispose of the same. Thus, there is no bar to transfer a suit from one Court to another in accordance with Section 24 of the CPC, even if it is posted for judgment. It is well-settled that no notice to the parties is necessary for Suo motu transfer by the District Court. 8. In Rabia Bi Kassim's case, a Division Bench of this Court has held that once the matter has been heard and posted for judgment, nothing is required to be done by the Court except to pronounce the judgment. Interlocutory application to reopen the case and record further evidence after the matter is reserved for pronouncement of judgment, is not permissible particularly when Order 18, Rule 2(4) of the CPC has been deleted. The said decision has no application to the facts of this case. Section 24 of the CPC clearly states that a suit can be transferred at any stage for trial or disposal. The District Court in exercise of the power vested in him under this section has transferred the suit. 9. The reasons assigned by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Koppal, seeking transfer of the suit is just and reasonable. The Judges of subordinate judiciary do not have power to recuse themselves from the case and direct the matter to be posted before any other Judge. That is why the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Koppal, has requested the District Judge to transfer the case in order to uphold the traditions of judiciary. The parties to a suit cannot insist that a particular Judge or Court should hear their case. I am of the view that there is no error in the discretion exercised by the District Court in transferring of the suit. 10. In the result, writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.