JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, has been been filed challenging the order dated 7.7.2015 passed by District Judge, Ballia by which transfer application no. 162 of 2015 filed by the petitioner has been rejected. A further relief has been sought by the petitioner for a direction to the first respondent before whom, civil appeal no. 44 of 1998 is pending, not to proceed with the hearing thereof and for transfer of the appeal to some other court. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 6.9.2014 passed by the first respondent in civil appeal no. 44 of 1998, preferred the second appeal no. 1483 of 2014 before this Court. The second appeal was allowed by judgment dated 4.2.2015, as this Court was of the opinion that the judgment rendered by the lower appellate court does not comply with the requirements of Order 41, Rule 31 CPC. The judgment of the lower appellate court dated 6.9.2014 was set-aside and direction was issued to the lower appellate court to decide the appeal afresh within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order. In pursuance of the remand order, the proceedings in the appeal were resumed before the first respondent. At this juncture, the petitioner filed an application for transfer of the proceedings to some other court with the allegation that the first respondent having already expressed its opinion, while deciding the appeal by judgment dated 6.9.2014 is prejudiced against the petitioner and also that the petitioner had heard the second respondent saying to the neighbours that the appeal is going to be decided in his favour and thus, the appeal be transferred to some other court. 3. The learned District Judge called for the comment from the presiding officer. The presiding officer stated that the appeal is being heard in pursuance of the directions given by this Court by its judgment dated 4.2.2015. The hearing in the appeal has to be completed within three months, as directed by this Court. He further stated that he has no objection to transfer of the appeal to some other court. 4. The presiding officer stated that the appeal is being heard in pursuance of the directions given by this Court by its judgment dated 4.2.2015. The hearing in the appeal has to be completed within three months, as directed by this Court. He further stated that he has no objection to transfer of the appeal to some other court. 4. The District Judge in the impugned order has held that merely because the first respondent has decided the appeal in the past is not sufficient to come to the conclusion that he is biased against the petitioner. It has been held that the first respondent is proceeding with the hearing of the appeal, as per the direction given by this Court. With these findings, the transfer application has been rejected. 5. Sri M.A. Qadeer, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that since in the past the first respondent had decided the appeal against the petitioner and therefore, there is every likelihood that the appeal will again be decided against the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner having heard in the neighbourhood, that the appeal is going to be decided against the petitioner and in such view of the matter, the presiding officer appears to be under influence of the contesting respondent. Thus, in the interest of justice, the appeal be transferred to some other court of competent jurisdiction. 6. The mere fact that the appeal was decided by the first respondent in the past and which judgment was later on, set-aside by this Court in an appeal preferred by the petitioner, are not sufficient to arrive at the conclusion that the first respondent is biased against the petitioner. 7. The allegation levelled by the petitioner against the presiding officer that he had heard rumours in the neighbourhood that presiding officer is under influence of the contesting respondent and the appeal would go in his favour is an allegation which is absolutely vague and does not inspire confidence. The petitioner, while making these allegations, has not disclosed name of any person to whom the respondent mentioned that the appeal will be decided in his favour. In such view of the matter, this Court does not find any jurisdictional error or any injustice having been caused to the petitioner, which may warrant interference in exercise of supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution. 8. In such view of the matter, this Court does not find any jurisdictional error or any injustice having been caused to the petitioner, which may warrant interference in exercise of supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution. 8. The petition lacks merits and is dismissed.