Allahabad High Court

the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 14.11.2025 passed by the District Judge, Ayodhya in Civil Misc. Case No.167 of 2025 whereby the District Judge has rejected Transfer Application No. 167 of 2025 filed by the petitioner seeking transfer of Execution Case No.08 of 2008 from the Court of Special Judge E.C. Act/ Additional District Judge, Court No.4, Ayodhya.

3. The petitioner filed the aforesaid Transfer Application on 03.11.2025 stating that Execution Case No.8 of 2008 arises out of a decree passed in SCC Suit No.02 of 1999 which was instituted for ejectment of the petitioner by three plaintiffs (the respondent No.1-Samarth Narayan, the respondent No.2- Tanuj Narayan and the respondent No.3- Smt. Manju Naryan). The suit was decreed in the year 2008. The petitioner filed a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act, 1887 which was decided in the year 2024. Thereafter, the order was challenged before this Court and ultimately, a Special Leave Petition was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was dismissed on 16.05.2024.

4. Meanwhile, the petitioner State Bank Of India filed objection under Section 47 of Civil Procedure Code in the year 2018, which was registered as Misc. Case No.12 of

2018. The State of U.P. through Collector Faizabad filed Misc. Case No.04 of 2024 under Order XXI Rule 97 C.P.C., which was dismissed by means of an order dated

28.10.2025. It was stated in the transfer application that the Court has made an observation in the order dated 28.10.2025 that State Bank Of India and the State of U.P. were acting in collusion with each other which discloses the mind set of the executing Court. The aforesaid observation made by the Court has given rise to a 2 A227 No. 7028 of 2025 reasonable apprehension in the mind of the judgment debtor, that he would not get a fair chance of defense before the Presiding Officer of the Court.

5. The petitioner further stated in the transfer application that admittedly, the property in question is Nazool land. The Presiding Officer has observed that the State Bank has repetitively referred the property as Nazool land. When the land in question belongs to Nazool, the repetitive observation by the Court that State Bank is stating that the land is Nazool land, is an unnecessary observation which is against the facts of the case. The petitioner prayed on the basis of aforesaid averment made in the transfer application, that the application under Section 47 of CPC registered as Civil Misc. Case No.12 of 2018 and the Execution Case No.08 of 2008 be transferred from the Court of IV Additional District Judge, Faizabad.

6. The decree holders filed objections against the aforesaid application stating that SCC Revision No.110 of 2008 filed by the judgment debtor was dismissed by means of a judgment and order dated 21.08.2018 passed by the High Court. Thereafter, the Amin went to the spot for taking possession of the property in compliance of the decree passed in SCC Suit No.02 of 1999 but the decree could not be executed because of obstruction put up by the Officers of the State Bank of India. Since then, the State Bank of India has made several efforts to obstruct execution of the decree. They had filed an application under Order XXI Rule 23 CPC, which was rejected by a detailed order dated 01.10.2018. Ten years after institution of the execution case, the State Bank has filed objections under Section 47 CPC, on 08.10.2018. The execution proceedings were stayed by means of an interim order dated 21.08.2018 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.0157 of 2018 but the SLP was dismissed by means of an order dated 16.05.2024.

7. The decree holders alleged that the State Government had filed objections under Order XXI Rule 97 read with Section 47 CPC for stalling the execution proceedings in connivance with the defendant State Bank of India, which was registered as Misc. Case No.3 of 2024 and after five dates, the State of U.P. did not press this application and it was accordingly dismissed on 22.07.2024. After some time, the State of U.P. again filed an application under Order XXI Rule 97 read with Section 47 CPC, which has been registered as Civil Misc. Case No.04 of 2024.

8. The decree holders further stated in their objections that the judgment debtor - State Bank Of India, has filed numerous applications to create obstacles in disposal of the application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC (Misc. Case No.12 of 2018) and ultimately, the Misc. Case No.04 of 2025 filed by the State was rejected by means of an order dated 28.10.2025. Misc. Case No.12 of 2018 was also fixed for hearing on

28.10.2025 but the State Bank of India sought adjournment in the aforesaid case. The Court heard submissions of the learned counsel for the decree holder in Misc. Case No.12 of 2018 and fixed the next date as 04.11.2025 giving an opportunity to the State Bank of India to advance submissions in the matter. Thereafter, the bank has filed the 3 A227 No. 7028 of 2025 transfer application.

9. It was also stated in the objection that the allegation made in the transfer application that the Court has made observation in the order dated 28.10.2025 that the State of U.P. had filed an application in collusion with the State Bank Of India, is false as no such observation has been made by the Court in the order dated 28.10.2025. The application has been moved with the mala fide intention to cause further delay in execution of the decree.

10. The learned District Judge, Ayodhya has rejected the transfer application by means of the impugned order dated 14.11.2025 wherein it is mentioned that comments were sought from the Presiding Officer of the Court concerned, who stated that he has not made any observation against the State Bank of India in the order dated

28.10.2025. He has merely made a mention of the objections filed in the matter and has not expressed any view thereon. The Presiding Officer of the Court has further stated in the comments submitted to the District Judge that the matter is about 25 years old. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has issued a direction for disposal of the execution applications within six months. In the present case, the execution proceedings are pending since the year 2008. The Presiding Officer stated that he has no objection in case the matter is transferred to any other Court.

11. The learned District Judge held that the mere allegation that the judgment debtor- petitioner has apprehension of denial of justice from the Court concerned, is not sufficient for transfer of the case and it has to be examined whether the aforesaid apprehension is reasonable and well founded or not. The petitioner has expressed the apprehension only on the ground that in the order dated 28.10.2025, the Court has observed that the State of U.P. has filed an application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC in collusion with the State Bank of India whereas the perusal of the order dated

28.10.2025 makes it clear that the executing Court has not made any such observation. The petitioner has failed to bring on record any material to support his apprehension that it will not get justice from the Court concerned. In these circumstances, there was no good ground for transfer of a case wherein the execution case is pending since the year 2008 and the application under Section 47 CPC is pending since the year 2018.

12. The learned District Judge further observed that this allegation cannot be cursorily brushed aside that the transfer application has been filed merely to cause delay in disposal of the execution application and the application under Section 47 CPC.

13. Assailing validity of the aforesaid orders, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that justice should not only be done but it should also appear to be done. The manner in which the Presiding Officer of the Court concerned is proceeding with the execution case and the application under Section 47 CPC, leaves no room of doubt that the petitioner will not get justice from the aforesaid Court. 4 A227 No. 7028 of 2025

14. This Court has gone through the order dated 28.10.2025 passed by the trial Court which is said to have given rise to an apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it will not get justice from the Court concerned because, as per the petitioner, it has been observed in the said order that the State of U.P. had filed the application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC in collusion with the petitioner. A bare perusal of the order shows that the Court has narrated the objection taken by the decree holders but besides narrating the objections of the decree holders, the Court has not made any observation of its own on the said allegation. The mere narration of the objections of the decree holder in the order dated 28.10.2025 does not amount to an observation of the Court that the State of U.P. had filed the application in collusion with the State Bank Of India and it does not give rise to a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the judgment debtor- State Bank of India that the Presiding Officer of the Court is biased against it.

15. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the manner in which the Court is proceeding with the case by fixing dates at short intervals is resulting in denial of adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and it also indicates that the Court is not acting in a fair manner. He has submitted that because of fixation of dates at short intervals, the petitioner is facing difficulty in challenging the orders passed by the executing Court, as certified copies are not being provided to the petitioner with reasonable promptitude.

16. A perusal of the case history taken by the E-Courts Mission Mode Project portal, shows that as many as 112 dates have been fixed by the executing Court since

08.10.2018. The case history particulars annexed with the petition show that the Court was fixing dates at reasonable intervals but when no effective progress could be attained and the hearing could not proceed for one reason or the other and now the decree is more than a quarter of a century old and the execution case is more than 17 years old, the executing court started fixing dates at short intervals.

17. In Rahul S. Shah v. Jitendra Kumar Gandhi (2021) 6 SCC 418 the Hon'ble Supreme Court had issued the following directions regarding expeditious disposal of execution cases: - "42.8. The court exercising jurisdiction under Section 47 or under Order 21 CPC, must not issue notice on an application of third party claiming rights in a mechanical manner. Further, the court should refrain from entertaining any such application(s) that has already been considered by the court while adjudicating the suit or which raises any such issue which otherwise could have been raised and determined during adjudication of suit if due diligence was exercised by the applicant.

42.9. The court should allow taking of evidence during the execution proceedings only in exceptional and rare cases where the question of fact could not be decided by resorting to any other expeditious method like appointment of Commissioner or calling for electronic materials including photographs or video with affidavits. 5 A227 No. 7028 of 2025

42.10. The court must in appropriate cases where it finds the objection or resistance or claim to be frivolous or mala fide, resort to sub-rule (2) of Rule 98 of Order 21 as well as grant compensatory costs in accordance with Section 35-A.

42.11. Under Section 60 CPC the term "… in name of the judgment-debtor or by another person in trust for him or on his behalf" should be read liberally to incorporate any other person from whom he may have the ability to derive share, profit or property.

42.12. The executing court must dispose of the execution proceedings within six months from the date of filing, which may be extended only by recording reasons in writing for such delay.

42.13. The executing court may on satisfaction of the fact that it is not possible to execute the decree without police assistance, direct the police station concerned to provide police assistance to such officials who are working towards execution of the decree. Further, in case an offence against the public servant while discharging his duties is brought to the knowledge of the court, the same must be dealt with stringently in accordance with law."

18. In these circumstances, the approach of the Court concerned in fixing dates at short intervals in an endeavour to decide the execution case expeditiously has to be appreciated rather than deprecated, so as to give rise to a ground for transfer from the Court.

19. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the judgment debtor has submitted numerous applications, all of which are being rejected by the trial court, which also gives rise to an apprehension that the petitioner will not get justice from the executing court. Passing adverse orders on applications does not give rise to a ground to seek transfer in the matter and in case the petitioner has any grievance against the order, it is open for him to avail remedy against the orders in accordance with law.

20. The next submission of learned counsel for the petitioner was that the petitioner is facing difficulty in challenging the orders because the executing Court is fixing dates at such short intervals and that makes it difficult for the petitioner to obtain certified copies of the orders, because the paper-book remains in the Court itself and does not go to the office concerned. In this regard, suffice it to say that in case any litigant is facing difficulty in getting certified copies, it is always open for him to bring this fact to the knowledge of the Presiding Officer concerned by fling an application in the Court. Alternatively, he can file an application to the Judicial Officer who is in-charge of the copying section or to the District Judge concerned, upon which the concerned officer would ensure that a certified copy is provided to the litigant. The petitioner has not made any application either to the Presiding Officer of the Court or to the Officer In-charge of the copying section or to the District Judge concerned.

21. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the approach of the Court 6 A227 No. 7028 of 2025 as reflected from the numerous orders passed by it rejecting the various applications filed by the petitioner, has left no room of doubt that the Court is biased against the petitioner and the petitioner will not get justice from the Presiding Officer. He has drawn attention of the Court to an order dated 06.08.2025 passed in Execution Case No.08 of 2008 and submitted that the Executing Court has rejected an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC filed in proceedings under Section 47 of CPC stating that the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 CPC will apply to suits only and not to proceedings under Section 47 CPC because the procedure relating to execution of decrees is contained in Order XXI CPC which is a self contained code.

22. A perusal of the order dated 06.08.2025 makes it manifest that this order was passed on an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC filed by the decree holder. The judgment debtor (the petitioner) had taken objection that Order VI Rule 17 CPC applies to suits only and it would not apply to execution proceedings. The Executing Court has made a mention of this objection in the order. However, the Court has not expressed this view rather the Court has turned down the objections and the application has been allowed. Therefore, this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is factually incorrect and is without force.

23. Keeping in view the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered view that there is no force in any of the submissions advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. There is no force in the transfer application filed by the petitioner before the District Judge and the District Judge has not committed any error in rejecting the same by the impugned order dated 14.11.2025.

24. The petition lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. December 8, 2025 -Amit K- (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 14.11.2025 passed by the District Judge, Ayodhya in Civil Misc. Case No.167 of 2025 whereby the District Judge has rejected Transfer Application No. 167 of 2025 filed by the petitioner seeking transfer of Execution Case No.08 of 2008 from the Court of Special Judge E.C. Act/ Additional District Judge, Court No.4, Ayodhya.

3. The petitioner filed the aforesaid Transfer Application on 03.11.2025 stating that Execution Case No.8 of 2008 arises out of a decree passed in SCC Suit No.02 of 1999 which was instituted for ejectment of the petitioner by three plaintiffs (the respondent No.1-Samarth Narayan, the respondent No.2- Tanuj Narayan and the respondent No.3- Smt. Manju Naryan). The suit was decreed in the year 2008. The petitioner filed a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act, 1887 which was decided in the year 2024. Thereafter, the order was challenged before this Court and ultimately, a Special Leave Petition was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was dismissed on 16.05.2024.

4. Meanwhile, the petitioner State Bank Of India filed objection under Section 47 of Civil Procedure Code in the year 2018, which was registered as Misc. Case No.12 of

2018. The State of U.P. through Collector Faizabad filed Misc. Case No.04 of 2024 under Order XXI Rule 97 C.P.C., which was dismissed by means of an order dated

28.10.2025. It was stated in the transfer application that the Court has made an observation in the order dated 28.10.2025 that State Bank Of India and the State of U.P. were acting in collusion with each other which discloses the mind set of the executing Court. The aforesaid observation made by the Court has given rise to a 2 A227 No. 7028 of 2025 reasonable apprehension in the mind of the judgment debtor, that he would not get a fair chance of defense before the Presiding Officer of the Court.

5. The petitioner further stated in the transfer application that admittedly, the property in question is Nazool land. The Presiding Officer has observed that the State Bank has repetitively referred the property as Nazool land. When the land in question belongs to Nazool, the repetitive observation by the Court that State Bank is stating that the land is Nazool land, is an unnecessary observation which is against the facts of the case. The petitioner prayed on the basis of aforesaid averment made in the transfer application, that the application under Section 47 of CPC registered as Civil Misc. Case No.12 of 2018 and the Execution Case No.08 of 2008 be transferred from the Court of IV Additional District Judge, Faizabad.

6. The decree holders filed objections against the aforesaid application stating that SCC Revision No.110 of 2008 filed by the judgment debtor was dismissed by means of a judgment and order dated 21.08.2018 passed by the High Court. Thereafter, the Amin went to the spot for taking possession of the property in compliance of the decree passed in SCC Suit No.02 of 1999 but the decree could not be executed because of obstruction put up by the Officers of the State Bank of India. Since then, the State Bank of India has made several efforts to obstruct execution of the decree. They had filed an application under Order XXI Rule 23 CPC, which was rejected by a detailed order dated 01.10.2018. Ten years after institution of the execution case, the State Bank has filed objections under Section 47 CPC, on 08.10.2018. The execution proceedings were stayed by means of an interim order dated 21.08.2018 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.0157 of 2018 but the SLP was dismissed by means of an order dated 16.05.2024.

7. The decree holders alleged that the State Government had filed objections under Order XXI Rule 97 read with Section 47 CPC for stalling the execution proceedings in connivance with the defendant State Bank of India, which was registered as Misc. Case No.3 of 2024 and after five dates, the State of U.P. did not press this application and it was accordingly dismissed on 22.07.2024. After some time, the State of U.P. again filed an application under Order XXI Rule 97 read with Section 47 CPC, which has been registered as Civil Misc. Case No.04 of 2024.

8. The decree holders further stated in their objections that the judgment debtor - State Bank Of India, has filed numerous applications to create obstacles in disposal of the application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC (Misc. Case No.12 of 2018) and ultimately, the Misc. Case No.04 of 2025 filed by the State was rejected by means of an order dated 28.10.2025. Misc. Case No.12 of 2018 was also fixed for hearing on

28.10.2025 but the State Bank of India sought adjournment in the aforesaid case. The Court heard submissions of the learned counsel for the decree holder in Misc. Case No.12 of 2018 and fixed the next date as 04.11.2025 giving an opportunity to the State Bank of India to advance submissions in the matter. Thereafter, the bank has filed the 3 A227 No. 7028 of 2025 transfer application.

9. It was also stated in the objection that the allegation made in the transfer application that the Court has made observation in the order dated 28.10.2025 that the State of U.P. had filed an application in collusion with the State Bank Of India, is false as no such observation has been made by the Court in the order dated 28.10.2025. The application has been moved with the mala fide intention to cause further delay in execution of the decree.

10. The learned District Judge, Ayodhya has rejected the transfer application by means of the impugned order dated 14.11.2025 wherein it is mentioned that comments were sought from the Presiding Officer of the Court concerned, who stated that he has not made any observation against the State Bank of India in the order dated

28.10.2025. He has merely made a mention of the objections filed in the matter and has not expressed any view thereon. The Presiding Officer of the Court has further stated in the comments submitted to the District Judge that the matter is about 25 years old. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has issued a direction for disposal of the execution applications within six months. In the present case, the execution proceedings are pending since the year 2008. The Presiding Officer stated that he has no objection in case the matter is transferred to any other Court.

11. The learned District Judge held that the mere allegation that the judgment debtor- petitioner has apprehension of denial of justice from the Court concerned, is not sufficient for transfer of the case and it has to be examined whether the aforesaid apprehension is reasonable and well founded or not. The petitioner has expressed the apprehension only on the ground that in the order dated 28.10.2025, the Court has observed that the State of U.P. has filed an application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC in collusion with the State Bank of India whereas the perusal of the order dated

28.10.2025 makes it clear that the executing Court has not made any such observation. The petitioner has failed to bring on record any material to support his apprehension that it will not get justice from the Court concerned. In these circumstances, there was no good ground for transfer of a case wherein the execution case is pending since the year 2008 and the application under Section 47 CPC is pending since the year 2018.

12. The learned District Judge further observed that this allegation cannot be cursorily brushed aside that the transfer application has been filed merely to cause delay in disposal of the execution application and the application under Section 47 CPC.

13. Assailing validity of the aforesaid orders, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that justice should not only be done but it should also appear to be done. The manner in which the Presiding Officer of the Court concerned is proceeding with the execution case and the application under Section 47 CPC, leaves no room of doubt that the petitioner will not get justice from the aforesaid Court. 4 A227 No. 7028 of 2025

14. This Court has gone through the order dated 28.10.2025 passed by the trial Court which is said to have given rise to an apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it will not get justice from the Court concerned because, as per the petitioner, it has been observed in the said order that the State of U.P. had filed the application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC in collusion with the petitioner. A bare perusal of the order shows that the Court has narrated the objection taken by the decree holders but besides narrating the objections of the decree holders, the Court has not made any observation of its own on the said allegation. The mere narration of the objections of the decree holder in the order dated 28.10.2025 does not amount to an observation of the Court that the State of U.P. had filed the application in collusion with the State Bank Of India and it does not give rise to a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the judgment debtor- State Bank of India that the Presiding Officer of the Court is biased against it.

15. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the manner in which the Court is proceeding with the case by fixing dates at short intervals is resulting in denial of adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and it also indicates that the Court is not acting in a fair manner. He has submitted that because of fixation of dates at short intervals, the petitioner is facing difficulty in challenging the orders passed by the executing Court, as certified copies are not being provided to the petitioner with reasonable promptitude.

16. A perusal of the case history taken by the E-Courts Mission Mode Project portal, shows that as many as 112 dates have been fixed by the executing Court since

08.10.2018. The case history particulars annexed with the petition show that the Court was fixing dates at reasonable intervals but when no effective progress could be attained and the hearing could not proceed for one reason or the other and now the decree is more than a quarter of a century old and the execution case is more than 17 years old, the executing court started fixing dates at short intervals.

17. In Rahul S. Shah v. Jitendra Kumar Gandhi (2021) 6 SCC 418 the Hon'ble Supreme Court had issued the following directions regarding expeditious disposal of execution cases: - "42.8. The court exercising jurisdiction under Section 47 or under Order 21 CPC, must not issue notice on an application of third party claiming rights in a mechanical manner. Further, the court should refrain from entertaining any such application(s) that has already been considered by the court while adjudicating the suit or which raises any such issue which otherwise could have been raised and determined during adjudication of suit if due diligence was exercised by the applicant.

42.9. The court should allow taking of evidence during the execution proceedings only in exceptional and rare cases where the question of fact could not be decided by resorting to any other expeditious method like appointment of Commissioner or calling for electronic materials including photographs or video with affidavits. 5 A227 No. 7028 of 2025

42.10. The court must in appropriate cases where it finds the objection or resistance or claim to be frivolous or mala fide, resort to sub-rule (2) of Rule 98 of Order 21 as well as grant compensatory costs in accordance with Section 35-A.

42.11. Under Section 60 CPC the term "… in name of the judgment-debtor or by another person in trust for him or on his behalf" should be read liberally to incorporate any other person from whom he may have the ability to derive share, profit or property.

42.12. The executing court must dispose of the execution proceedings within six months from the date of filing, which may be extended only by recording reasons in writing for such delay.

42.13. The executing court may on satisfaction of the fact that it is not possible to execute the decree without police assistance, direct the police station concerned to provide police assistance to such officials who are working towards execution of the decree. Further, in case an offence against the public servant while discharging his duties is brought to the knowledge of the court, the same must be dealt with stringently in accordance with law."

18. In these circumstances, the approach of the Court concerned in fixing dates at short intervals in an endeavour to decide the execution case expeditiously has to be appreciated rather than deprecated, so as to give rise to a ground for transfer from the Court.

19. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the judgment debtor has submitted numerous applications, all of which are being rejected by the trial court, which also gives rise to an apprehension that the petitioner will not get justice from the executing court. Passing adverse orders on applications does not give rise to a ground to seek transfer in the matter and in case the petitioner has any grievance against the order, it is open for him to avail remedy against the orders in accordance with law.

20. The next submission of learned counsel for the petitioner was that the petitioner is facing difficulty in challenging the orders because the executing Court is fixing dates at such short intervals and that makes it difficult for the petitioner to obtain certified copies of the orders, because the paper-book remains in the Court itself and does not go to the office concerned. In this regard, suffice it to say that in case any litigant is facing difficulty in getting certified copies, it is always open for him to bring this fact to the knowledge of the Presiding Officer concerned by fling an application in the Court. Alternatively, he can file an application to the Judicial Officer who is in-charge of the copying section or to the District Judge concerned, upon which the concerned officer would ensure that a certified copy is provided to the litigant. The petitioner has not made any application either to the Presiding Officer of the Court or to the Officer In-charge of the copying section or to the District Judge concerned.

21. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the approach of the Court 6 A227 No. 7028 of 2025 as reflected from the numerous orders passed by it rejecting the various applications filed by the petitioner, has left no room of doubt that the Court is biased against the petitioner and the petitioner will not get justice from the Presiding Officer. He has drawn attention of the Court to an order dated 06.08.2025 passed in Execution Case No.08 of 2008 and submitted that the Executing Court has rejected an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC filed in proceedings under Section 47 of CPC stating that the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 CPC will apply to suits only and not to proceedings under Section 47 CPC because the procedure relating to execution of decrees is contained in Order XXI CPC which is a self contained code.

22. A perusal of the order dated 06.08.2025 makes it manifest that this order was passed on an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC filed by the decree holder. The judgment debtor (the petitioner) had taken objection that Order VI Rule 17 CPC applies to suits only and it would not apply to execution proceedings. The Executing Court has made a mention of this objection in the order. However, the Court has not expressed this view rather the Court has turned down the objections and the application has been allowed. Therefore, this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is factually incorrect and is without force.

23. Keeping in view the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered view that there is no force in any of the submissions advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. There is no force in the transfer application filed by the petitioner before the District Judge and the District Judge has not committed any error in rejecting the same by the impugned order dated 14.11.2025.

24. The petition lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. December 8, 2025 -Amit K- (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)