JUDGMENT 1. The instant transfer application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been filed seeking transfer of Civil Suit No.56/2020 (464/2012) (26/2014), pending before the Court of Additional District Judge No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan II, Jaipur to any other court of equivalent jurisdiction, within the province of Jaipur Metropolitan II, Jaipur. 2. Applicant-plaintiff has stated that the present civil suit for declaration, possession, damages, mandatory and permanent injunction, was instituted way back in the year 2008 and wherein after filing the written statement by contesting defendants and framing of issues, both parties have adduced their complete evidence and suit reached at the stage of final hearing. At this stage, the Presiding Officer, instead of hearing and decide the suit on merits, opined that according to valuation of suit, same should be referred to civil court having lower pecuniary jurisdiction and asked the plaintiff to move an application for this purpose. When plaintiff denied to move such an application, the Presiding Officer asked the contesting defendant No.2 to move such application. Defendant No.2, thereafter, filed application on 10.08.2021 praying that the Court of Additional District Judge has no pecuniary jurisdiction to hear and decide the present suit. It may be noticed that such objection was not taken by defendant No.2 in his written statement nor at any stage before concluding of evidence. Plaintiff filed reply and opposed the application, that when no such objection was raised at the initial stage, now after completion of evidence, at the fage end of trial, such application may not be entertained. The Presiding Officer of the trial court, on application of defendants framed issue No.4(?), related to the jurisdiction and decided the same against the plaintiff vide Order dated 17.08.2021 and suit has been ordered to be returned under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC for filing before the competent court having lower pecuniary jurisdiction. 3. Plaintiff assailed the Order dated 17.08.2021 by way of filing S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1566/2021, before the High Court. Vide Order 04.01.2022, the High Court set aside the order dated 17.08.2021 and ordered to restore the present suit to its original number as also directed to dispose of the suit within a period of four months. 4. 3. Plaintiff assailed the Order dated 17.08.2021 by way of filing S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1566/2021, before the High Court. Vide Order 04.01.2022, the High Court set aside the order dated 17.08.2021 and ordered to restore the present suit to its original number as also directed to dispose of the suit within a period of four months. 4. Thereafter, plaintiff moved an application under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure before the District Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan II, Jaipur, levelling some allegations against the Presiding Officer of the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan II, Jaipur, and impugned the fairness, independence and impartiality of the Presiding Officer in the matter. The allegation was that the Presiding Officer is having some remote contact/nexus with defendant No.2 and is biased with plaintiff, therefore, plaintiff has lost faith to get justice from that Court. Defendant No.2 opposed the transfer application. Learned District Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan II, Jaipur, dismissed the transfer application vide Order dated 22.03.2022. Thereafter, applicant-plaintiff has filed the present transfer application before this Court. 5. Notices of transfer application were issued to respondents. Respondent No.2 has filed reply to the transfer application and while denying grounds for seeking transfer, has prayed to dismiss the transfer application with heavy costs. Respondents No.3 & 6 have also filed reply to the transfer application. 6. During course of arguments, this Court put a query from counsel for applicant as to maintainability of this transfer application before the High Court after dismissal of his transfer application under Section 24 CPC by the District judge. Learned counsel for applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble High court of Andhra Pradesh delivered in case of Munnangi Ramakrishna Rao v. Dr. Learned counsel for applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble High court of Andhra Pradesh delivered in case of Munnangi Ramakrishna Rao v. Dr. Vanankuru Venkata Siva Ramakrishan Prasad [(2003) 2 AN.W.R. 52], wherein the similar question arose before the Court: "Whether a party who was unsuccessful before the District Court in a transfer petition, without questioning the same either under Section 115 of the Code or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, can again invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 24 of the Code on the ground of concurrent jurisdiction?" While dealing with the aforesaid question, the learned Single Judge of the Andra Pradesh High Court considered that under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, both High Court and Sessions Court are given powers to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Plethora of case law shows that the bail application dismissed by the Sessions Court, does not bar, to entertain the bail application by the High Court. Further, placing reliance on the previous judgments of Patna and Calcutta High Courts, it was finally held that "It is thus seen that both Patna and Calcutta High Courts have also taken the view that an unsuccessful party before the District Court can move a fresh application for the same purpose in the High Court, which impliedly means that he need not question the order of dismissal by the District Court either u/s 115 C.P.C or under Article 227 of the Constitution. Therefore, we hold that a petition u/s 24 C.P.C is maintainable even without an order of dismissal of such petition by the District Court being questioned either u/s 115 C.P.C. or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The point is answered accordingly. No counter to this judgment has been made on behalf of respondents. This Court concurs with the opinion held by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. 7. Having heard counsel for both parties and from perusal of the record, it appears that an apprehension has occurred in the mind of plaintiff that the Presiding Officer, is not conducting the suit in fair and impartial way, but has some biased attitude and seems to be influenced at the behest of defendant No.2, for one or another reason. 7. Having heard counsel for both parties and from perusal of the record, it appears that an apprehension has occurred in the mind of plaintiff that the Presiding Officer, is not conducting the suit in fair and impartial way, but has some biased attitude and seems to be influenced at the behest of defendant No.2, for one or another reason. The apprehension has been substantiated on record detailing out facts in order to show that how and in what manner the present Presiding Officer may be influenced by defendant No.2 and apparently for such reason, he, instead of proceeding for final hearing and decide the suit on merits, returned the suit at the fage end of trial to cause damage to the plaintiff, as the Presiding Officer is prejudiced. It is not in dispute that the order passed by a Judicial Officer, in respect of returning the suit has been quashed and set aside by the High Court and the suit has been ordered to be restored on its original number with direction to hear and decide the same on merits within a time bound period. 8. The concerned Presiding Officer of the Additional District Judge No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan II, Jaipur, vide its order dated 04.05.2022, has sent his comments pursuant to the Order dated 04.01.2022 passed by this Court and has expressed his no objection, in case the suit is transferred to any other court and has also given his explanation in respect of conducting expeditious proceedings. 9. Learned counsel for applicant has placed reliance upon the judgments, delivered in cases of Prem Prakash Mishra v. J P Bansal [(1998) RLW 2 638], Pushpa Devi Saraf v. Jai Narain Parasrampuria [AIR (1992) SC 1133] and Kulwinder Kaur v. Kandi Friends Education Trust [ (2008) 3 SCC 659 ]. 10. In case of Prem Prakash Mishra (Supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court, in facts and circumstances of that matter, opined that it is well settled that justice should not only be done, but seems to be done. It is not necessary for petitioner to prove any definite bias against the Presiding Judge but it is enough if petitioner can show that he/she has genuine apprehension that he/she would not get justice from the court in which his/her case is pending. 11. It is not necessary for petitioner to prove any definite bias against the Presiding Judge but it is enough if petitioner can show that he/she has genuine apprehension that he/she would not get justice from the court in which his/her case is pending. 11. In case of Pushpa Devi Saraf (Supra), Honble the Supreme Court observed that though the allegations in the present petition are not sufficient and do not warrant any order of transfer, yet the Presiding Officer has been unduly affected by the allegations levelled against him and which is evident from his report, wherein he not only denied the imputations levelled against him but also explained and justified the orders passed by him. In that situation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the interest of Presiding Officer as also in the interest of Justice, allowed the transfer application. 12. In case of Kulwinder Kaur (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding certain broad propositions as to what construed a ground for transfer, considered that where there is a reasonable apprehension in the mind of a litigant that he might not get justice in the court, in which the case is pending, if the court feels that plaintiff or the defendant is not likely to have "fair trial" in the court from which he seeks to transfer a case, it is not only the power, but a duty of the court to make order of transfer the case. 13. According to judgments discussed hereinabove, it stands clear that ordinarily the transfer application on the ground of levelling false, filthy, malicious, unfounded and unwarranted allegations against the concerned Presiding Officer with ulterior motive should not be entertained and such practice of seeking transfer of cases, may not be encouraged rather should be deprecated. Nevertheless, it may not be held that transfer application on the basis of such nature of allegations is not liable to be entertained in any circumstances but such application can be entertained after considering facts and circumstances of that particular case. The underlying object to entertain transfer applications on the basis of allegations against the Presiding Officer either being biased or being pre-judiced, is to impart impartial justice. Fairness and impartiality on the part of the Presiding Officer is integral part of the justice. The underlying object to entertain transfer applications on the basis of allegations against the Presiding Officer either being biased or being pre-judiced, is to impart impartial justice. Fairness and impartiality on the part of the Presiding Officer is integral part of the justice. If the higher court feels that in order to save the image of institution as well as to build/maintain the faith and trust of litigants in obtaining fair, impartial and real justice from judicial courts, the interest of justice demands to transfer the case, in that situation, a genuine application for transfer may be/should be entertained and considered on its own merits. Simultaneously, application based on false, unfounded and unwarranted allegations are not required to be entertained. It is trite law that High Court/District Court has power to entertain such kind of transfer applications but powers should be exercised carefully, cautiously and sparingly, keeping in mind the underlying object of advancement of justice. A difference is always necessary to be drawn between bona fide and mala fide applications. It is also necessary to strike a balance, taking into account the totality of facts and circumstances of a particular case, as also to examine the motive and underlaying object of seeking transfer of any case on the ground of biasedness or prejudicedness of any Presiding Officer in any particular case. 14. Keeping in mind the proposition of law discussed hereinabove, this Court has taken into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances of the present case. As far as allegations levelled by the applicant-plaintiff against the Presiding Officer of the Additional District Judge No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan II, Jaipur having prejudiced with plaintiff and biased towards defendant No.2 are concerned, the same are not convincing nor have been substantiated/supported by any cogent peace of substantial evidence. However, it cannot be said that plaintiff has filed the transfer application with any malicious motive or to achieve some ulterior motive. There is no justification for the respondent- defendant No.2, for not consenting rather opposing the transfer application before the District Judge as well as before this Court. The concerned Presiding Officer, in his explanation has also expressed his no objection. There is no justification for the respondent- defendant No.2, for not consenting rather opposing the transfer application before the District Judge as well as before this Court. The concerned Presiding Officer, in his explanation has also expressed his no objection. Therefore, without discussing other factors in detail, but taking into consideration the judgments discussed hereinabove, this Court deems it just and proper to allow the transfer application as same would be in the interest of both parties as also in the interest of the concerned Presiding Officer, therefore, to secure ends of justice, the present transfer application is allowed and the present civil suit be transferred from the Court of Additional District Judge No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan II, Jaipur to any other court of equivalent jurisdiction, for the purpose of final hearing and decision. 15. As a result, the transfer application stands allowed. The District Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan II, Jaipur will transfer the present Civil Suit No.56/2020 (464/2012) (26/2014) from Additional District Judge No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan II, Jaipur to any other court of equivalent jurisdiction within his province. 16. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to send a copy of this Order to the District Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan II, Jaipur for compliance. 17. All pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.