G MARISWAMAIAH Vs. G CHANNABASAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under Section 24 of the C.P.C. the High Court or the District Court as the case may be must be satisfied that genuine reasons exist before the case is transferred from one Court to another. If no genuine reason as such is shown then the jurisdiction can neither be invoked nor exercised.

(2.) That the Judge felt embarrassed to decide something in one case because earlier he had decided on a similar question in a particular manner and expressed his desire not to hear the subsequent case and directly wrote a letter to the District Judge on the Administrative side is not a ground in itself for this Court in revision to consider that the application made by a party before the District Judge has been turned down by the District Judge on irrelevant consideration. The District Judge has satisfied himself that no good grounds exist for a transfer. He has also taken support from the fact that he had administratively rejected the request made by the learned Civil Judge and therefore what he could not grant on the administrative side may not be granted on the judicial side on the application of one of the parties to the suit in the Court of the Civil Judge at Hospet.

(3.) I am completely in agreement with the reasoning of the District Judge. There is no failure to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him. On the other hand, he has properly ex-ercised that jurisdiction and correctly rejected the prayer for transfer. If transfers are made on such flimsy grounds then there will be no end to transfers of cases from one Court to another because the Judge had decided in a particular manner in regard to the admissibility of a document.