JUDGMENT : MADAN GOPAL VYAS, J. 1. The present transfer application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the CPC for short) has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 12.05.2023 passed by the learned District Judge, Churu whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 24 of the CPC for transferring the Civil Original Suit No. 26/2022 (Raju Singh vs. Ram Singh and Others) as well as Civil Misc. Case No. 15/2012 filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC and Civil Misc. Case No. 27/2022 filed under Order 39 Rule 2A of the CPC pending before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Ratangarh to any other competent court of District Churu, has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have filed a civil suit seeking decree of declaration and permanent injunction alongwith application for temporary injunction before the court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Ratangarh on 30.7.2022 and the petitioner, thereafter, submitted reply to the application for temporary injunction, written statement and the counter claim. It is submitted that in the said suit proceedings, the Mauka Commissioner was appointed, who visited the spot on 09.08.2022 and submitted his report alongwith map and photographs. Aggrieved by the said report, the petitioner submitted an application under Order 26 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the CPC stating inter-alia that the report of the Mauka Commissioner is incomplete and it was prayed that the Mauka Commissioner may be called in Court for recording his statement and for cross-examination, but the said application was rejected by the learned trial Court vide order dated 01.10.2022. 3. Learned counsel further submits that on 15.10.2022, the respondents-plaintiffs Raju Singh and Mohar Singh filed an application under Section 151 of the CPC and on the same day, the petitioner filed an application under Order 11, Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC, but the petitioner’s application was rejected with cost of Rs. 2,000/-. On 9.11.2022, the petitioner filed another application under Order 18 Rule 18 of the CPC, which too, was dismissed vide order dated 16.11.2022 with cost of Rs. 3,000/-. 4. 2,000/-. On 9.11.2022, the petitioner filed another application under Order 18 Rule 18 of the CPC, which too, was dismissed vide order dated 16.11.2022 with cost of Rs. 3,000/-. 4. Learned counsel submits that in view of the above, it is clear that the learned trial Court is biased against the petitioner and the Presiding Officer of the Civil Court, Ratangarh has expressed such a view during the course of hearing that the petitioner has lost faith. Apart from this, the plaintiffs/respondents are claiming that they will get their desired judgment and decree. Therefore, it is prayed that the Civil Suit no. 26/2022 and Civil Misc. Case No. 15/2022 and Civil Misc. Case No. 27/2022 pending before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Ratangarh may be transferred to any other competent court at Churu. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court delivered in the case of Meeta Agarwal vs. Hathroigari Grah Nirman Sehkari Samiti, Jaipur, 2022 (4) DNJ (Raj.) 1515. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner is making vague and baseless allegations not only against the respondents but also against the Presiding Officer. It is further submitted that the learned District Judge, Churu has rightly rejected the application under Section 24 of the CPC vide impugned order dated 12.5.2023 and the same warrants no interference by this Court. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. This Court in Hotel Clarks Amer vs. Explorers, 2013 SCC Online Raj. 237 in Para No. 3 held as under: “3.......There is nothing on record to establish that the plaintiff is not likely to be allowed proper consideration of its case in the dispute set up by it before the trial court. It appears to this Court that an unwarranted and unjustifiable inference has been drawn by the plaintiff from the proceedings before the trial court anxious merely to expedite the adjudication of the dispute as laid before the Court. It is also relevant to note that admittedly the suit is at the stage of final hearing before the trial court.” 8. Similarly, this court in Roop Narayan vs. Sushila Devi, 2015 SCC Online Raj. It is also relevant to note that admittedly the suit is at the stage of final hearing before the trial court.” 8. Similarly, this court in Roop Narayan vs. Sushila Devi, 2015 SCC Online Raj. 7 in held as under: “The allegations appear to have been made feeling frustrated on account of rejection of the application filed by the petitioner under Section 10 CPC on the date when the incident alleged to have been happened.” 9. Similarly, this court in Roop Narayan vs. Sushila Devi, 2015 SCC Online Raj. 7 in held as under: “The allegations appear to have been made feeling frustrated on account of rejection of the application filed by the petitioner under Section 10 CPC on the date when the incident alleged to have been happened.” 9. At this stage, it is apt to reproduce the observations/findings arrived at by the learned District Court while deciding the application under Section 24 of the CPC, which reads thus: ^^------fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ls tks fVIi.kh bl U;k;ky; }kjk ryc dh xbZ Fkh mlesa oLrqr% ;g rF; Li"V gksrk gS fd ÁkFkhZ i{k }kjk fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds le{k ewy okn esa nks ÁkFkZuk i= vkns'k 7 fu;e 11 o vkns'k 1 fu;e 10 lhihlh ds ÁLrqr fd;s x;s blds vykok nl vU; ÁkFkZuk i= i=koyh ij ÁLrqr fd;s x;s gSa tks fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk [kkfjt fd;s x;s gSaA vafre nks ÁkFkZuk i=] Øe'k% vkns'k 11 fu;e 12 ,oa vkns'k 18 fu;e 18 lhihlh ds varxZr Øe'k% fnukad 19-10-2022 o 16-11-2022 dks [kkfjt fd;s x;s gSa tks fd fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk Øe'k% nks gtkj :i;s o rhu gtkj :i;s dher ij [kkfjt fd;s x;s FksA bu nks ÁkFkZuk i=ksa ds iwoZ dksbZ Hkh ÁkFkZuk i= dher ij [kkfjt ugha fd;k x;k FkkA ÁkFkhZ }kjk pwafd mDr okn i=koyh ,oa lacaf/kr fofo/k i=koyh esa ,d ds ckn ,d ÁkFkZuk i= ÁLrqr fd;s x;s bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk vuko';d :i ls ÁkFkZuk i= ÁLrqr djus ds ÁkFkhZ@Áfroknh ds O;ogkj ij fu;a=.k djus gsrq dher ij vafre nks ÁkFkZuk i= [kkfjt fd;s tkuk Árhr gksrk gS tks rF; vfHkys[k ls ÁdV gSA vr% fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk ÁkFkhZ ds ÁkFkZuk i=ksa dks dher ij [kkfjt djus ds vk/kkj ij ,slk dksbZ fu"d"kZ ugha fudkyk tk ldrk fd ihBklhu vf/kdkjh dk ÁkFkhZ ds Áfr :[k i{kikriw.kZ vFkok vuqfpr Fkk fo'ks"kdj rc tcfd mDr ÁkFkZuk i=ksa ij fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'kksa ds xq.kkoxq.k ij ÁkFkhZ dh dksbZ vkifÙk VªkalQj ihVh'ku esa vafdr ugha gS rFkk fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk bu ÁkFkZuk i=ksa ij ikfjr vkns'kksa dh oS/krk dks jhfotu vFkok vU; dk;Zokgh esa l{ke U;k;ky; esa pqukSrh fn;s tkus ds rF; Hkh vfHkys[k ij ugha gSA vr% Li"V gS fd fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk ÁkFkhZ ds fofHkUu ÁkFkZuk i=ksa ij ikfjr fd;s x;s vkns'kks dh oS/krk ds fcanw ij pqukSrh fn;s tkus ds rF; Hkh vfHkys[k ij ugha gSaA vr% Li"V gS fd fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk ÁkFkhZ ds fofHkUu ÁkFkZuk i=ksa ij ikfjr fd;s x;s vkns'kksa dh oS/krk ds fcanw ij pqukSrh fn;s fcuk ek= ÁkFkZuk i=ksa dks [kkfjt dj nsus ds vk/kkj ij ÁkFkhZ dh ;g vk'kadk fd fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds orZeku ihBklhu vf/kdkjh ls mls U;k; ÁkIr ugha gksxk] fuewZy ,oa v;qfDr;qDr gSA ÁkFkhZ }kjk bl vk'k; ds tks rF; VªkalQj ihVh'ku esa vafdr fd;s x;s gSa fd jktw flag o eksgj flag mldk etkd mM+krs gSa] /kedh nsrs gSa] U;k;ky; ls dher yxokdj vkosnu [kkfjt djokus dh ckr dgrs gSa ;s lHkh vkjksi fujk/kkj gSa rFkk budk leFkZu djus okyh dksbZ lkexzh i=koyh ij ugha gS vU;Fkk Hkh ;g vkjksi U;k;ky; ds ihBklhu vf/kdkjh ds fo:) ugha gSA** 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and after perusing the order dated 12.05.2023 passed by the learned District Judge, Churu rejecting petitioner’s application under Section 24 of the CPC, I am of the considered opinion that after considering each and every aspect of the matter, the learned District Judge, Churu has rightly rejected the application under Section 24 of the CPC. The order passed by the learned District Judge, Churu is well reasoned and speaking order and therefore, calls for no interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the present transfer application as well as the stay application stands dismissed.