JUDGMENT 1. - This petition under Section 24 CPC seeks transfer of suit No.61/2013 pending in the court Additional District Judge No.1, Bharatpur to any other court out of Bharatpur or at least in a court beyond the courts situated at District Headquarters Bharatpur. 2. Heard counsel and perused the petition. 3. The transfer of the civil suit for mandatory injunction is sought not so much on any substantive ground such as specific instance/s of the presiding officers' conduct but only on the mere apprehension of the applicant that the respondent Dorilal by virtue of being a Public Prosecutor attached inter alia to the court of Additional District Judge No.4, Bharatpur would be a beneficiary of being acquainted with the presiding officer in whose court the matter is pending and thus justice is not likely to be done in the suit for mandatory injunction filed by the applicant. 4. In my considered view on a mere apprehension, powers of this court under section 24 CPC cannot and should not be exercised. Aside of above, there is no occasion to reasonably infer that a public prosecutor would wield influence over the judge in a court where he is assigned to discharge his duties. Such an assumption is without foundation and quite absurd and could as easily apply to the cases the public prosecutor conducts on behalf of the State against ordinary citizens being prosecuted for offences alleged. The trial of the case at hand was conducted before the Additional District Judge No.1, Bharatpur within the same precincts, where the court of Additional District Judge No.4 is situated during which evidence of parties was concluded. No objection was raised by the applicant at the relevant time. And thereafter only following the transfer of the case from the court of Additional District Judge No.1, Bharatpur to the court of Additional District Judge No.4, Bharatpur this application has been filed. A judicial officer more so of the rank of Additional District Judge cannot be casually alleged to be influenced by a public prosecutor who appears as counsel for the state before him. A judicial officer more so of the rank of Additional District Judge cannot be casually alleged to be influenced by a public prosecutor who appears as counsel for the state before him. On the assertion by counsel for the applicant that "justice should not only be done but also seem to be done", I am of the view that this court should emphasise that the aspect of "justice also seem to be done" cannot by itself without anything concrete and substantive be used to question the fairness of a judge and render injustice to him. A contrary view would sow the seeds of chaos and delays in the administration of justice till a litigant is allowed his absolute subjective satisfaction. Finally, in the event of an adverse order, as the applicant seems to apprehend on an unwarranted assumption of partisanship (and yet may be so on the pure merits of the case) there is no gain saying the fact that an appeal for corrective action would be available to the applicant. 5. I find no merit in the application. Consequently, it is dismissed.Application Dismissed. *******