JUDGMENT 1. The applicant/plaintiff has filed the present MCC under section 24 read with section 151 of CPC seeking trnasfer of the proceedings in Civil Suit No.3-A/2016 (Bhanushali Grih Nirman Sahkari Maryadit, Ujjain v. Naggibai and others) from the Court of Additional District Judge, Ujjain to the District Court, Indore. 2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performanc of contract in respect of land bearing Survey No. 345/1, 345/1/1, 345/1/2 and 347/1 situated at Village Nanakheda, Tahsil and District Ujjain. Said land is owned by defendant No.1 - Naggibai and defendant No.2 - Late Sunderbai. Defendant No.2 - Sunderbai has expired and now represented through legal heirs. Defendants No.3 to 7 have been impleaded as defendants as they purchased the said property from defendants No.1 and 2. According to plaintiff, as per terms and conditions of agreement to sale dated 8.2.1998, plaintiff has paid a total sum of Rs.2,58,750/- to defendants No.1 and despite that, she has not executed the sale-deed in his favour. 3. After notice, defendants No.3 to 5 have filed their written statement on 3.5.2016. Learned trial Court as well as first appellate Court has refused to grant temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff, but in Miscellaneous Appeal No.1696/2016, the respondent No.5, who is a practicing lawyer, fairly stated that the respondents will not dispose of the property in question and will not create any third party right. Vide order dated 8.2.2017, aforesaid Miscellaneous Appeal was disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to decide the suit within a period of six months. 4. The plaintiff has filed the present application seeking transfer of the case on the ground that respondent No.5 is a practicing lawyer at Ujjain, therefore, there is a possibility that he will make an attempt to influence the proceedings at Ujjain. Because of respondent No.5, who is practicing at Ujjain, four cases under the provisions of Indian Penal Code against him, have already been transferred from Ujjain to Indore. In Para 6 of the memo of the application, the plaintiff has given the details of criminal cases pending against respondent No. 5. The plaintiff has also filed copy of the order-sheet of one of the case, where misbehaviour of of respondent No.5 has been noted in the order-sheet. In Para 6 of the memo of the application, the plaintiff has given the details of criminal cases pending against respondent No. 5. The plaintiff has also filed copy of the order-sheet of one of the case, where misbehaviour of of respondent No.5 has been noted in the order-sheet. The parties and witnesses are having fear to appear before the Court, therefore, in the interest of justice, the proceedings of the civil suit be transferred to Indore. 5. After notice, respondents have filed the return denying all the averments made in this application, by submitting that fear and apprehension of the applicant is baseless. All the criminal cases registered against him have been closed and he has been acquitted in all the cases. The apex Court as well as this Court in number of cases have held that the power of transfer of cases should be exercised with due care and caution. 6. Shri Assudani, learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the respondent No.5 is a practicing lawyer at Ujjain, therefore, the possibility of influencing the Judge cannot be ruled out and because of his involvement in criminal activities, certain cases have been transferred to Indore, therefore, the proceedings of the suit are liable to be transferred. 7. Per contra. Shri Chitale, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents has emphasised that all the allegations made by the applicant are baseless and without any proof. All the criminal cases were transferred in the year 209-2010 and they have been closed and the respondent No.5 has been acquitted. There is no recent incident in respect of his misbehaviour and causing influence to the Court have been reported, therefore the power under section 24 of the CPC cannot be exercised. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on decisions in Kulwinder Kaur v. Kandi Friends Education Trust [ (2008)3 SCC 659 ] Jitendra Singh v. Bhanu Kumari [(2008)1 SCC 130] Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. v. Hong Kong and Shaghai Banking Corpn [ (2009)8 SCC 646 ] Sudarshan Jain v. Deep Chand Jain [AIR 2006 MP6] 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of contract against the defendants, in which, defendant No. 5 is a practicing lawyer at Ujjain, therefore, he is a party in the suit because of his impleadment by the plaintiff. The suit property is situated within the territory of Ujjain District, all the parties are resident of Ujjain, the entire cause of action for filing the suit has arisen at Ujjain. That, all the allegations against respondent No.5 are of the period 2009-2010. After 2010, the plaintiff has failed to point out any incident when the respondent No. 5 has influenced the Judge or tried to threaten the plaintiff or his witnesses. The proceedings cannot be transferred just because the respondent No. 5 is an Advocate and practicing at Ujjain. 10. In case of Kulwinder Kaur (supra), the apex Court has held that discretionary power to transfer the case from one Court to another has to be exercised with due care, caution and circumspection. There has to be a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the litigant that he might not get justice in the Court in which the suit is pending. Paras 13 and 14 of the said judgment are reproduced 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 proceedings 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 Ss. 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 Ss. 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 of 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.” 11. In Sudarshan Jain (supra), this Court has considered the scope of section 24 of CPC in detail and has observed as under : “8. The thrust of the matter is whether the transfer sought for by the petitioner under section 24 of the CPC is correct and sound to invite the indulgence of the learned District Judge. Section 24 of the CPC confers general power to transfer, withdraw the suits and appeals or other proceeding at any stage on the application of the party and the powers of the High Court and District Judge are concurrent. The said power can also be exercised suo motu. An exercise of power under section 24 of the CPC is distinct and should be exercised by the Court with extreme careadn caution. The reasonableness of the grounds put forth to be scanned with studied scrutiny. 9. The said power can also be exercised suo motu. An exercise of power under section 24 of the CPC is distinct and should be exercised by the Court with extreme careadn caution. The reasonableness of the grounds put forth to be scanned with studied scrutiny. 9. It is to be borne in mind though the onus of establishing sufficient grounds is heavily on the applicant but it is not necessary to prove any definite bias. It is requisite that the applicant should show genuine apprehension. The apprehension has to be reasonable. In the case of Ratanlal v. Suresh Kumar [ AIR 1987 MP 178 ], it has been held that transfer can only be ordered when the party has reasonable apprehension that justice would he denied to him. The mere fact that the party ‘has suspicion in this regard would not constitute a valid ground for transfer. The assertion that the learned Judge has taken a particulal view in the case is no ground for transfer. A judicial order passed by a Judge cannot legitimately be made the foundation for a transfer application. The proper remedy against it is by way of an appeal or revision. 10. In the case of Gorrella Verraju [ AIR 1996 AP 34 ] (supra), the Bench expressed the view as under : “9. The general principle underlining section 24 of the Code of civil procedure, governing the transfer of cases from one Court to another is that the adjudication of a dispute if allowed to be completed in the same Court, the parties would suffer huge expenses and face difficulties which invariably would lead to injusitce if the suit has filed in a particular Court for the purpose of working injustice to opposite party. The party seeking transfer has reasonable apprehension that he will not get a fail trial or the transfer is designed for the convenience of the parties or transfer is needed to avoid conflicting decisions.” 11. In the case of Rajkot Cancer Society, [AIR 1988 Guj. 63] (supra), it has been held as under: “It must be borne in mind that transfer of a case from one Court to another is a pretty serious matter because it casts indirectly doubt on the integrity or competence of the Judge from whom the matter is transferred. This should not be done without a proper and sufficient cause. 63] (supra), it has been held as under: “It must be borne in mind that transfer of a case from one Court to another is a pretty serious matter because it casts indirectly doubt on the integrity or competence of the Judge from whom the matter is transferred. This should not be done without a proper and sufficient cause. If there are good and sufficient reasons for transferring a case from one Court to another, they must be clearly set out. Mere presumptions or possible apprehension could not and should not be basis of transferring a case from one Court to another. Only in very special circumstances, it may become necessary to transfer a case from one Court to another. Such a power of transfer of a case from one Court to another has to be exercised with due care and cation bearing in mind that there should be no unnecessary, improper or unjustifiable stigma or slur on the Court from which the case is transferred.” 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in the considered opinion of this Court, no case for transfer of the cases is made out. Accordingly, these MCC stand dismissed. No order as to costs. Vijay Assudani for applicant; A.K. Chitale with A. Pradhan for respondents.