JUDGMENT : (J.J. Munir, J.) 1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant in support of this application at great length. 2. This Transfer Application has been moved by defendant No.1 of Original Suit No.298 of 2020, M/s. Amar Concrete Slipper and Another Vs. Bechan Singh and Others, seeking transfer of the suit aforesaid, from the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Varanasi to any other Court of competent jurisdiction in the judgeship. 3. The applicant earlier approached the learned District Judge, Varanasi with the same prayer, who has rejected the applicant's transfer application vide order dated 21.09.2022. The allegations in the transfer application are founded on lack of impartiality of the Presiding Officer and his bias against the applicant, which the applicant says leads him to believe that he would not get justice at the hands of the Presiding Officer concerned. The basis for this belief in substance is that the defendant sought time to file a reply to the temporary injunction application made in the suit and objected to short dates being fixed in the temporary injunction matter. The learned Trial Judge declined the prayer for adjournment and is said to have told the learned Counsel for the defendant to address the Court on the temporary injunction matter, otherwise the Court would pass an injunction order. 4. It is also the applicant's case that this course of action was adopted by the Trial Judge, even though an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC questioning the maintainability of the suit had been made. It is also averred that in the month of May, 2022, the applicant overheard a conversation between the Pairokar of the respondents and his Counsel where they said that the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by the applicant would certainly be dismissed and a temporary injunction order passed in their favour. 5. It is then averred that when the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was dismissed on 25.07.2022, the applicant was confident that what the applicant heard in the month of May, 2022, was not just a rumor. The Presiding Officer's fairness, independence and impartiality in the case is compromised. The order of the learned District Judge in rejecting the transfer application has also been criticized, saying that ignoring the averments in the transfer application made before the learned District Judge, his application has been refused. 6. The Presiding Officer's fairness, independence and impartiality in the case is compromised. The order of the learned District Judge in rejecting the transfer application has also been criticized, saying that ignoring the averments in the transfer application made before the learned District Judge, his application has been refused. 6. This Court has also looked into the order passed by the learned District Judge refusing the plea for transfer. A perusal of the said order reveals that the allegations before the learned District Judge were more elaborate. It was said before the learned Judge that the conduct of the Presiding Officer was such that it would affect the future course of proceedings. The Presiding Officer was fixing short dates of one to two days. It was alleged in the application before the learned Judge that when the Counsel for the applicant objected to the short dates, saying that in older cases the Court was adjourning by fifteen to twenty days and that there was no reason to adjourn the present case by one or two days alone, the Presiding Officer is said to have told the learned Counsel that he may better address the Court on the temporary injunction matter, otherwise an injunction order would be passed against his clients. 7. It was further said by the Judge that the learned Counsel may complain against him anywhere that he wishes. It is also attributed to the learned Trial Judge that he told the learned Counsel for the applicant that he may permit him to pass orders in this case and the learned Counsel would be engaged in many cases. There was also the same allegation that though the suit is not maintainable, but when the motion under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was heard, afterwards outside the Court room, the plaintiff's Perokar and learned Counsel were overheard saying that they had a talk with the Judge and the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC would be surely rejected and the injunction granted. 8. The learned District Judge, Varanasi called for a report of the Presiding Officer and on going through his comments, held the allegations to be false and absolutely without substance. It was remarked that if the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC were rejected, it did not mean that temporary injunction would necessarily be granted. 8. The learned District Judge, Varanasi called for a report of the Presiding Officer and on going through his comments, held the allegations to be false and absolutely without substance. It was remarked that if the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC were rejected, it did not mean that temporary injunction would necessarily be granted. The learned District Judge has recorded in his order that the Presiding Officer's comments show that there was a direction by this Court that the temporary injunction application may be decided expeditiously and it is for the said reason that short dates were being fixed by him. So far as the conversation between the plaintiff's Pairokar and the learned Counsel said to be overheard by the applicant is concerned, the learned District Judge has remarked that it is unbelievable. So far as the learned District Judge's approach is concerned, this Court is in wholehearted agreement with it, but that is not the end of the matter. 9. The present transfer application which carries irresponsible and cavalier allegations is an incident of a pernicious tendency in society to disrespect Courts. The Courts are bound by their conscience and expected to decide in their best judgment. If a litigant is aggrieved by an order, his/her remedy is to invoke appellate procedures. Every litigant has a right to seek his remedy before a higher Forum and ask an unfavourable order to be set aside. However, the litigant has no right, merely because a Judge has made unfavourable orders to malign the Judge with irresponsible allegations and cast a slur on his good name and integrity. 10. Here, what the Court finds is that the primary grievance of the applicant is that the learned Judge was fixing short dates in the temporary injunction matter. For one, temporary injunction matters are inherently urgent in nature and ought to be disposed of, expeditiously. If, therefore, the learned Judge was proceeding with the temporary injunction matter fixing short dates of a day or two, there is nothing objectionable about it. Quite apart, the reason why a shorter schedule of dates was being determined in the temporary injunction application in the present case was that there was an order for the expeditious disposal of the application to the Trial Judge, issued by this Court. The temporary injunction matter had to be scheduled on short dates. Quite apart, the reason why a shorter schedule of dates was being determined in the temporary injunction application in the present case was that there was an order for the expeditious disposal of the application to the Trial Judge, issued by this Court. The temporary injunction matter had to be scheduled on short dates. The other grievance that the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, was rejected after the plaintiff's Pairokar and the learned Counsel were overheard to say that they had a talk with the Judge and the Order VII Rule 11 CPC application would be rejected, is an allegation which is to be discarded with a firm and strong disapproval. It is a cavalier and baseless allegation built on story telling, without the slightest evidence. If these kind of allegations are entertained, the functioning of Courts would come to a standstill. The learned Judges in subordinate Courts would be too scared to pass a single effective order in fear of such allegations being hurled at them through the mechanism of transfer applications and other devices. Allegations of the kind that find place in the affidavit, in these circumstances, are to be curbed with a heavy hand if the system of justice is to be preserved in the interest of the litigants themselves. Here, all cavalier allegations that find place these days in respect of transfer pleas, against Judges in subordinate Courts, show that a re-look is required in superintendence where strict penalties have to be imposed progressively, in order to curb this menace. 11. In this connection, reference has to be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Anupam Ghosh and Another Vs. Faiz Mohammed and Others, Transfer Petition (C) Nos. 2331-2334 of 2021 decided on 02.09.2022, where it has been observed: "One of the grounds on which the proceedings are sought to be transferred is that the petitioners believe that they are not getting a fair trial and the respondents being local bigwigs are able to influence the local Court. We deprecate such a stand and the ground on which the proceedings are sought to be transferred. Merely because some Orders are passed on judicial side (in the present case in the execution proceedings) which may be against the petitioners, it cannot be said that the Court, which passed the order was influenced. We deprecate such a stand and the ground on which the proceedings are sought to be transferred. Merely because some Orders are passed on judicial side (in the present case in the execution proceedings) which may be against the petitioners, it cannot be said that the Court, which passed the order was influenced. If the petitioners are aggrieved by any judicial order, the proper remedy would be to challenge the same before higher forum. But merely because some Orders adverse to them are passed by the Court, it cannot be said that the Orders on judicial side are passed under influence. Nowadays, there is a tendency to make such allegations against the judicial Officers whenever the orders are passed against a litigant and the orders are not liked by the concerned litigant. We deprecate such a practice. If such a practice is continued, it will ultimately demoralize the judicial officer. In fact, such an allegation can be said to be obstructing the administration of justice." 12. In the totality of circumstances, this Transfer Application is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-recoverable from the applicant. The applicant is ordered to deposit Rs. 10,000/-in costs with the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Varanasi within fifteen days of date. In the event, costs are not deposited by the applicant with the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Varanasi, through a crossed bank instrument payable in the account, the costs shall be recovered by the District Magistrate, Varanasi from the applicant at the expiration of the said period as arrears of land revenue. The costs recovered from the applicant shall be cause to be credited in account of the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Varanasi, by the District Magistrate, promptly. 13. Let this order be communicated to the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Varanasi, the District Judge, Varanasi, the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Varanasi, the District Magistrate, Varanasi and the applicant Bechan Singh through the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi by the Registrar (Compliance) within 48 hours.