' This Civil Revision has been filed by the plaintiffs against the order, dated 15-9-1987 passed by the learned District Judge, Gujrat whereby, on the basis of a report of denial made by the Civil Judge concerned about certain remarks attributed to him as having been made during the trial of their suit, he declined their prayer for transfer of their suit from his Court.
2. The order impugned herein relates to the domain of discretionary jurisdiction and cannot be said to have been passed by the learned District Judge either fancifully or arbitrarily inasmuch as it stands judicially recognised that where a question of fact arises as to what happened in the lower Court, the statement of the presiding Judge is conclusive. No affidavit by an Advocate or a party is admissible to controvert the statement of the Judge. See Katta R. Venkatesayya and another v.
Muhammad Ghouse Saheb AIR 1944 Mad. 450 wherein so was held on the basis of two earlier judgments reported as Reg v. Pastonji 10 Born. H.C.R. 75 and Rex v. Grant 110 E.R.
1092.
3. There does not exist a case for exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Hence, dismissed in limine.