JUDGMENT : G. B. SHAH, J. 1. This petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner-original plaintiff challenging the office Order No. 368 of 2013 dated 18-4-2013 passed by the Principal District Judge, Surat under Sec. 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the Code'). The prayer sought for by the petitioner is as under: "12(A) Be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or in the nature of certiorari or any other writ order or direction, quashing and setting aside the Order No. 368 of 2013 dated 18-4-2013 passed by the respondent transferring the Special Civil Suit No. 388 of 2006, Special Civil Suit No. 143 of 2007 and Regular Civil Suit No. 612 of 2007 to the Court of 15th Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, Surat from the respective Judicial Officers before whom the matters were pending. (B) Be pleased to restore the three suits to the files of the original Courts and further direct the trial Courts in all the suits to proceed to hear, determine and conclude the suits expeditiously within the time-limit set forth by this Hon'ble Court. (C)...... (D)...... " 2. Special Civil Suit No. 388 of 2006 was filed by Syed Rashidakhatun against heirs of deceased Vishnubhai Ambalal & Ors. including petitioner who is defendant No. 8 therein. Special Civil Suit No. 143 of 2007 was filed by the petitioner against the plaintiff of Special Civil Suit No. 388 of 2006. In Appeal from Order No. 86 of 2007 and Appeal from Order No.375 of 2007 arising out of order below Exh. 5 of the above suits were decided by this Court on 12-3-2008 wherein the trial Court was directed to hear, decide and conclude both the above suits on or before 31-12-2008. Issues were framed and evidence of petitioner-plaintiff was closed in Special Civil Suit No. 143 of 2007. The amendment application filed below Exh. 241 by the plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No. 388 of 2006 was rejected by the trial Court against which Special Civil Application No. 1871 of 2013 has been filed by the plaintiff is pending in the High Court. The amendment application filed below Exh. 241 by the plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No. 388 of 2006 was rejected by the trial Court against which Special Civil Application No. 1871 of 2013 has been filed by the plaintiff is pending in the High Court. The respondent passed an impugned order under Sec. 24 of the Code, transferring the petitioner-plaintiff's suit along with the other two suits to the Court of 15th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat at the stage when the evidence of defendants were completed and the Special Civil Suit No. 143 of 2007 was at the final stage of arguments and only evidence of defendant No.7 is pending. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. P.C. Kavina appearing with Mr. B.A. Vaishnav, learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Principal District Judge has passed the impugned order without any sufficient and cogent reasons under the guise of public administration resulting into grave injustice to the petitioner. He has submitted that the petitioner was not heard before the order was passed. He has submitted that even after the impugned order was passed, the petitioner has applied for certified copy of the impugned order on 20-4-2013 and the petitioner was asked to approach on 22-4-2013. However, on 22-4-2013, the petitioner was informed that the respondent i.e. the Principal District Judge, Surat has instructed not to give the certified copy of the impugned order. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has then submitted that under Sec. 24 of the Code, transferring the suits from one Court to another is an exception and not a general rule. Suits can be transferred in rare case of contingencies only and thus the respondent should have exercised the said power with utmost care, caution and with total application of judicial mind. He has submitted that there is neither any application made by any party for such transfer of case nor is there any administrative contingency for which such an order was required to be passed by the respondent in such a high-handed fashion. He has submitted that there is neither any application made by any party for such transfer of case nor is there any administrative contingency for which such an order was required to be passed by the respondent in such a high-handed fashion. He has further submitted that defendant No. 7 in Special Civil Suit No. 143 of 2007 and plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No. 388 of 2006 had not produced any original documentary evidence in spite of 7 years of pending trial, and therefore, it is obvious to note from the conduct of the defendant that the defendant wants to delay the proceedings. It is further submitted that though many other connected Civil Suits which were pending in the same Court but the respondent has chosen to transfer Regular Civil Suit No. 143 of 2007 and Special Civil Suit No. 388 of 2006 by clubbing three suits and the logic behind this act is suspicious because the impugned order is as such silent on the said aspect that which public administration has prompted learned Principal District Judge to transfer the suits without disclosing the said fact in the impugned order. Therefore, learned Senior Advocate has reiterated that when the suit has almost reached final stage of arguments, then the action of transfer of said suits without disclosing any sufficient reason is illegal and the reasons for such transfer need to be investigated or at least disclosed in the interest of justice. It is pertinent to note that the suits have been transferred from senior Judge to a junior Judge which is very unusual. Thus, it is contended by learned Senior Advocate that the impugned order be quashed and set aside. 4. Learned Advocate Mr. A.S. Supehia for the respondent has drawn attention of this Court on the affidavit-in-reply dated 7-5-2013 filed on behalf of the respondent and submitted that while denying all the allegations/averments made in the petition that as per provisions of Sec. 24 of the Code, the District Court may at any stage, withdraw any suit or proceedings pending in any Court and transfer the same for trial to any Court subordinate to it and that there was no need for any application from the parties. It is further submitted that the parties to the suit cannot insist to try the same before a particular Judge or Court and that in this case, no inconvenience is caused to any parties as the Courts are in the same building. It is specifically stated that the power to transfer the suit under Sec. 24 of the Code is a discretionary power. Moreover, learned Advocate Mr. Supehia has submitted that keeping in mind the direction issued by the Hon'ble High Court on its administrative side in its confidential letters, the respondent herein has transferred the suits as mentioned in the impugned order and so the respondent has not arbitrarily transferred the same. Mr. A. S. Supehia has drawn attention of this Court to the order dated 23-5-2012 passed in Special Civil Application No. 7329 of 2012 and submitted that such discretion of transferring the suit on the basis of confidential letter of the High Court should not be interfered with. It is further stated in the affidavit that the transferring of three suits has been partially implemented and the Regular Civil Suit No. 612 of 2013 has been transferred and received by the other Court on 22-4-2013 and Special Civil Suit No. 143 of 2007 has been already transferred and received by the transferee Court - 15th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat on 26-4-2013. Hence, it is prayed that the ad-interim relief granted may be vacated. 5. I have heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Kavina for the petitioners and learned Advocate Mr. A. S. Supehia for the respondent and also carefully perused the documents forthcoming on the record. The following facts are not under dispute that this Court while deciding Appeal from Order Nos. 86 and 375 of 2007 which had been decided on 12-3-2008 had directed the trial Court to hear and decide the suits i.e. Special Civil Suit Nos. 388 and 143 of 2007 on or before 31-12-2008. After framing of the issues on 28-10-2010 in both the suits, Special Civil Suit No. 143 of 2007 has almost reached at the final stage i.e. the petitioner-plaintiff's evidence is closed and the evidence related to defendant Nos. 1 to 6 is also over and the said suit is pending for recording of evidence of defendant No.7. After framing of the issues on 28-10-2010 in both the suits, Special Civil Suit No. 143 of 2007 has almost reached at the final stage i.e. the petitioner-plaintiff's evidence is closed and the evidence related to defendant Nos. 1 to 6 is also over and the said suit is pending for recording of evidence of defendant No.7. In another Special Civil Suit No. 388 of 2006 the evidence of plaintiff is concluded and the defendant's evidence is to be led if the plaintiff does not want to examine any further witness. Both the suits were pending before the 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat. The verbatim typed copy of the said impugned office order at Annexure-A reads as under : VERBATIM TYPED COPY I. C. SHAH Principal District Judge STD Code Direct : 0261 District Court, Athwalines, Direct : 2651801 Surat-395 007 (Gujarat) EPABX : 2651805-6-9-11 Exh. 12 sut@gujaral.gov.in Fax : 2651802 - 4 Residence : 2464488 E-mail : dcourt- OFFICE ORDER NO. 368 OF 2013 In exercise of power confirmed under Sec. 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, and in public administration the following order of transfer of case is passed : The Special Civil Suit Nos. 388 of 2006 and 143 of 2007 at present pending in the Court of the 3rd Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, Surat and the Regular Civil Suit No. 612 of 2007 at present pending in the Court of the Principal Sr. Civil Judge, Surat are hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Court of the 15th Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, Surat for trial and disposal in accordance with law. District Court, Surat. Sd/- Date : 18-4-2013 (I. C. Shah) Principal District Judge, Surat. S. B. No. 648 of 2013. Copy forwarded with compliments for information and necessary action to : 1. Principal Sr. Civil Judge, Surat. 2. The 3rd/15th Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, Surat. 3. The President, Dist. Bar/City Bar Association, Surat. 4. The Return Clerk, Dist. Court, Surat. 5. Copy on Notice Board. By Order Sd/- Dy. Registrar, District Court, Surat." 6. S. B. No. 648 of 2013. Copy forwarded with compliments for information and necessary action to : 1. Principal Sr. Civil Judge, Surat. 2. The 3rd/15th Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, Surat. 3. The President, Dist. Bar/City Bar Association, Surat. 4. The Return Clerk, Dist. Court, Surat. 5. Copy on Notice Board. By Order Sd/- Dy. Registrar, District Court, Surat." 6. In the above backdrop, the question to be decided before this Court is whether the above-referred impugned office Order No. 368 of 2013, dated 18-4-2013 which is in the nature of administrative order is maintainable in the eye of law or whether the same is bad for want of reason and it being non-speaking one and also against the principles of natural justice, the same deserves to be set aside. 7. Referring to the initial two lines of the impugned order, prima facie, it appears that the respondent, on his own Suo motu, has transferred the suits on the ground of public administration, exercising his discretion under Sec. 24 of the Code. Referring to the affidavit-in-reply dated 7-5-2013 on behalf of the respondent, it can easily be said that no .party to any of the suits has made any complaint regarding the on going trial before the 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge at Surat. It can also be said that neither concerned Judge of the Court of 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge has made any grievance against all concerned with the said suits which have been transferred. Under the circumstances, it can be said that trial was smoothly proceeding before the appropriate forum which has reached towards the final stage in the suit filed by the petitioner. It is also the fact that this Court had fixed such matters in time bound schedule. In the impugned order dated 18-4-2013, the ground of transferring the suits is 'public administration' exercising discretion under Sec. 24 of the Code suo motu by the respondent. In the above circumstances, whether the petitioner-plaintiff has right to !snow further reasons over and above public administration i.e. which public administration has forced the respondent to pass the impugned office order for transferring the pending part heard suits from one Court to another Court. 7.1. In the above circumstances, whether the petitioner-plaintiff has right to !snow further reasons over and above public administration i.e. which public administration has forced the respondent to pass the impugned office order for transferring the pending part heard suits from one Court to another Court. 7.1. It is well settled legal position that for exercise of powers under Sec. 24 of the Code, it is not necessary that the party to the suit or other proceeding must have applied for the same. The High Court or District Court may even Suo motu exercise such powers in the interest of justice. The reasons shown in Paragraph 4 of the affidavit-in-reply dated 7-5-2013 of transfer of 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat vide Notification No. A.0705/2013(II)(34) dated 2-5-2013 to the Rajkot is subsequent event which has nothing to do with the impugned office order dated 18-4-2013 and so, I do not find any merit in it. Next ground shown in Paragraph 5 of the affidavit-in-reply dated 7-5-2013 that the Court to which all the suits are transferred is also sitting in the same building, and therefore, no inconvenience is going to be caused to any party. Merely because the suits are transferred to the Court sitting in the same building cannot cover the ground of public administration and as such, it is not the cogent ground for exercise of suo motu powers under Sec. 24 of the Code. The third ground of suo motu transfer of suits shown in Paragraph 6 of the affidavit-in-reply dated 7-5-2013 reads as under " ...... All the suits are transferred keeping in mind the direction issued by the Hon'ble High Court in its confidential letters and the District Court has not arbitrarily transferred all the four suits....." 7.2. From a bare reading of the above referred contention put forth in the affidavit-in-reply, it appears that confidential letters have been received by the respondent related to all the four suits and in light of issuance of the said direction, the respondent has passed the impugned order. No date or inward/outward number has been mentioned regarding the said confidential letters received by the respondent. No date or inward/outward number has been mentioned regarding the said confidential letters received by the respondent. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has argued that as such the petitioner does not want to know the facts of the confidential letters alleged to have been written by the High Court on its administrative side, but in fact, when the writ has been filed, it is the bounden duty of the respondent either to annex the said copies of the confidential letters for judicial review by this Court or at least gist of the said letters should be put in the affidavit-in-reply. It has been submitted by learned Advocate Mr. A.S. Supehia for the respondent that if this Court will pass an order, the respondent will comply with such an order and will produce such confidential letters or alternatively, if the matter be adjourned, then the respondent will seek direction from the High Court on its administrative side whether he produces the same in this petition or not. When the petition has been filed challenging the impugned office order dated 18-4-2013 which gives an impression of suo motu action on the ground of public administration, in my view, it is the bounden duty of the respondent to produce such confidential letters without waiting for an order of this Court to that effect. If at all the respondent wants to seek direction from the High Court on its administrative side, he could have done that after filing of the affidavit-in-reply on 7-5-2013, more particularly, when the issue is under judicial consideration/review of the impugned office order. Anyhow, when the respondent is unable to take suo motu decision regarding production of confidential letters, neither the petitioner nor this Court is eager to know such confidentiality. What is expected from the respondent was to add few words related to the confidential letters of the High Court on its administrative side and in the public interest, he has exercised his powers under Sec. 24 of the Code in the impugned order dated 18-4-2013. The only reason shown in the impugned order 'public administration' is not enough because the party could not get any clue from the said ground 'public administration' as to what was the reason, more particularly, when neither the concerned Judge has shown any grievance nor any party has made any grievance related to the said transfer of the suits. The only reason shown in the impugned order 'public administration' is not enough because the party could not get any clue from the said ground 'public administration' as to what was the reason, more particularly, when neither the concerned Judge has shown any grievance nor any party has made any grievance related to the said transfer of the suits. In my view, to add those few words in the impugned order related to confidentiality would have cleared all the doubts in the mind of the petitioner and/or all the concerned related to the said suits. I am of the view that Sec. 24 of the Code has not given unfettered powers or discretion either to the District Court or to this Court to transfer the suit without any reason. Moreover, cogent reasons are required to be mentioned in the impugned administrative order for which the petitioner or a party is definitely entitled to know the same. A judge is impartial administrator of law and "judicial balance" is mark of his authority and source of respect to judicial system. While issuing the said confidential letters, I am sure that the High Court on its administrative side must not have given any direction to the respondent that while exercising discretionary powers under Sec. 24 of the Code, the respondent cannot put the said cogent reasons related to confidentiality in the impugned order for knowledge of all concerned, more particularly, parties to the suit. In my view, just but unreasoned conclusion does not appear to be just to those who read the same. The reasons always disclose how the mind is applied to the subject-matter for the decision regardless of the fact whether such decision is purely administrative. 7.3. Learned Senior Advocate has placed reliance on Paragraph 47 of the decision in the case of Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, reported in 2010 (9) SCC 496. Paragraph 47 reads as under : "47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds (a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. (b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. (c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. (b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. (c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. (d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power. (e) Reasons re-assure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. (f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. (g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts. (h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to Rule of law and constitutional governance is in. favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the life-blood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. (i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the Judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants faith in the justice delivery system. (j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and Transparency. (k) If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process, then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succincr. A pretence of reasons or 'rubber-stamp reasons' is not to be equaled with a valid decision-making process. (m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision-making not only makes the Judges and decision-makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor.) (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human .rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor.) (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human .rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v. Spain, 1994 (9) EHRR 553, at 562 Para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405, wherein the Court referred to Art. 6 of European Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions", (o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments playa vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "Due Process"." (Emphasis supplied) 7.4. Second decision on which learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance is in the case of TGN Kumar v. State of Kerala, reported in AIR 2011 SC 708 . Relevant portion of Paragraph 17 reads as under "17. Thus, in the instant case, we have no hesitation in holding that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Sec. 482 of the Code and/or Art. 227 of the Constitution by laying down the afore-extracted general directions, which are inconsistent with the clear language of Secs. 205 and 313 of the Code, as noted above. We feel that in light of the afore-noted guidelines laid down by this Court, further directions on the same issue by the High Court were wholly uncalled for. In this regard, the following observations in S. Palani Velayuthan v. District Collector, Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu, 2009 (10) SCC 664 are quite apt : "The Courts would avoid the temptation to be-come authoritarian. We have been coming across several instances, where in their anxiety to do justice, the Courts have gone overboard, which results in injustice, rather than justice. It is said that all power is trust and with greater power comes greater responsibility." (Emphasis supplied) 7.5. The third decision on which learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance is in the case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector, Raigad, reported in AIR 2012 SC 1339 . Paragraph 29 of the same reproduced as under : "29. The third decision on which learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance is in the case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector, Raigad, reported in AIR 2012 SC 1339 . Paragraph 29 of the same reproduced as under : "29. It is a settled proposition of law that even in administrative matters, the reasons should be recorded as it is incumbent upon the authorities to pass a speaking and reasoned order. In Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P., AIR 1991 SC 537 : (1993 AIR SCW 77), this Court has observed as under : Every such action may be informed by reason and if follows that an act uninformed by reason is arbitrary, the rule of law contemplates governance by law and not by humour, whim or caprice of the men to whom the governance is entrusted for the time-being. It is the trite law time ever so high, the laws are above you.” This is what a man in power must remember always." (Emphasis supplied) 8. Learned Advocate Mr. A.S. Supehia has drawn attention of this Court to Annexure-R1 - copy of the order dated 23-5-2012 passed in Special Civil Application No. 7329 of 2012 and submitted that as held by this Court, such discretion of transferring the suit on the basis of the confidential letters of the High Court on its administrative side is not required to be interfered with. I have carefully gone through the same. The observation made in the said order at Annexure-R1 is not applicable to the case on hand because it has been specifically observed in Paragraph Nos. 2 and 5 of the said order that while exercising the discretion, learned Principal District Judge on administrative side has referred confidential letters of the Judge from whose Court, the matter was transferred, and accordingly, it was not interfered with. In the impugned order dated 18-4-2013 in the case on hand, learned Principal District Judge has neither referred confidential letters of the High Court on its administrative side nor has he remotely mentioned about the same and created impression that for public administration, he being the head of the department of the said district, suo motu exercised discretion under Sec. 24 of the Code which in my view, he could not have done, as discussed hereinabove. 9. 9. During the course of submissions, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to Paragraph 1 of the petition and Annexure-B collectively and submitted that after the impugned order dated 18-4-2013, the petitioner has submitted application for getting the certified copy of the impugned order on 20-4-2013 and deposited the amount of Rs. 50/- towards expenses to be incurred for the same and the same has been registered under Form 'A' vide Receipt No. 1452135. The petitioner was asked to approach on 22-4-2013 for getting the certified copy. However - on 22-4-2013 the petitioner was informed that the respondent i.e. Principal District Judge, Surat has instructed not to give certified copy of the impugned order and accordingly, the petitioner herein could not produce certified copy of the impugned order and produced "Verbatim Typed Copy" of the impugned order in lieu of the certified copy. Vide office submission dated 25-4-2013, the Registrar (Judicial) has placed the same before this Court for passing appropriate orders as column No. 12 of the check-list was not complied. In affidavit-in-reply dated 7-5-2013, the respondent has contended that with reference to the contents of Paragraphs 1 to 3 of the petition, the contentions are self-explanatory and he does not offer any remarks, meaning thereby, so far as the above-referred averments of Paragraph 1 of the petition are concerned, the respondent does not want to deny the same and it amounts to admission. When the respondent being the head of the department was bold enough to issue administrative office order dated 18-4-2013 posing it as 'public administration', then in my view, he should have equally shown courage to give certified copy of the said impugned order, more particularly, when one of the parties i.e. petitioner-plaintiff has asked for the same following due procedure. The conduct of the respondent-learned Principal District Judge to give instructions not to give certified copy of the impugned order is not at all tenable in law. Why does justice carry balance in her hand with lifted scales? This is plain - simple. It needs no justification. The balances have always been the symbol of even-handed justice. The Court as a Court of justice must not project itself as a Court of "no-justice" by instructing not to give certified copy of the impugned order even if it is an office order. This is plain - simple. It needs no justification. The balances have always been the symbol of even-handed justice. The Court as a Court of justice must not project itself as a Court of "no-justice" by instructing not to give certified copy of the impugned order even if it is an office order. The Court is a Court having its own "judicial discipline" and striking the "judicial balance", it must perform its essential function(s). 10. Under the above referred circumstances, the impugned order dated 18-4-2013 is not maintainable in eye of law because as referred in Paragraphs 47(a), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (j) and (l) of the decision in the case of Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. (supra), even in administrative decision, reasons are required to be incorporated. In the impugned order dated 18-4-2013, the reason shown as 'public administration' alone is not complete one and none can gather any reason, more particularly, parties of the relevant suits from the said impugned order as discussed hereinabove. As such, cogent reason which the respondent has with him i.e. directions issued by the High Court on its administrative side in its confidential letters was required to be mentioned by the respondent and in absence of the same, it is non-speaking order, and hence, in my view, it is against the principles of natural justice and as a result, this petition is partly allowed. Accordingly, the impugned office Order No. 368 of 2013 dated 18-4-2013 passed by the respondent is set aside. 11. This Court is quite aware of the fact that it can be said that if the complete reason has not been shown in the impugned order, then it can be said irregularity and not illegality, but then also, the said irregularity, in my view, give wrong signal to the litigant who has rushed to this Court without getting certified copy and so, it is required to be cured by issuing fresh order related to the same suits incorporating/mentioning/showing that keeping in mind the directions issued by the High Court on its administrative side in its confidential letters and in the public interest, the same have been transferred. The prayer of restoration of the three suits to the file of the Court does not survive as the concerned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat is transferred to another district. The prayer of restoration of the three suits to the file of the Court does not survive as the concerned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat is transferred to another district. However, while issuing fresh office order as directed above, the respondent is at liberty to consider changed circumstances and to restore the said suits before the said 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat where they were belonged or to any other Court exercising discretionary powers under Sec. 24 of the Code. 11.1. It is important to note that the petitioner has not joined other parties of both the relevant suits as the impugned order has not been passed on the application of any party and reserves its liberty to request this Court after production of affidavit-in-reply to be filed by the respondent. After referring the affidavit-in-reply dated 7-5-2013 filed on behalf of the respondent, it was thought it fit not to give any direction to the petitioner to join the other parties of the relevant suits. Hence, for the knowledge of other parties of the concerned suits, the Registrar General is directed to forward true copy of this order (in duplicate) to the respondent with a further direction to keep the same in the Record and Proceedings of Special Civil Suit No. 388 of 2006 arid Special Civil Suit No. 143 of 2007. Petition allowed.