The requirement of meaningful hearing under Section 24(1) of CPC is a statutory mandate before transferring suits, which must not be compromised.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

C. Hari Shankar, J.

1. The petitioner Manish Kumar @ Manish Abrol is the defendant in CS 12086/16 (Shashi Bhushan Kohli v. Manish Kumar), the plaintiff in CS 8296/16 (Manish Abrol v. C.D. Chawla) and Defendant 2 in CS 9599/16 (Mohit Virmani v. C.D. Chawla). CS 12086/16 is pending before the learned Additional District Judge ("the learned ADJ") - 01 (West), Tis Hazari, CS 8296/16 was pending before Ms. Shivali Sharma, ADJ - 03 (West), Tis Hazari and CS 9599/16 was pending before Ms. Veena Rani, ADJ - 06 (West), Tis Hazari.

2. Shashi Bhushan Kohli and Mohit Virmani together filed TP 17/21, seeking transfer of CS 8296/16 and CS 9599/16 to the Court where CS 12086/16 was pending. The impugned order dated 11th November 2021, passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge (West) ("the learned Pr DSJ") allows the said transfer petition and transfers CS 8296/16 (Manish Abrol v. C.D. Chawla) and CS 9599/16 (Mohit Virmani v. C.D. Chawla) to the Court which is in seisin of CS 12086/16 (Shashi Bhushan Kohli v. Manish Kumar).

3. The petitioner Manish Kumar, aggrieved by the said order, has approached this Court, invoking the jurisdiction vested in it by Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. A perusal of the impugned order dated 11th November 2021 of the learned Pr DSJ reveals that pleadings have been completed in TP 17/21. On the said date, associate Counsel of the arguing Counsel who was to appear on behalf of the petitioner, sought an adjournment on behalf of the arguing Counsel as he had to attend a Parent Teachers' Association (PTA) meeting of his child.

5. Observing that the ground urged was "no ground for adjournment", the learned Pr DSJ has proceeded, vide the impugned order, to transfer CS 8296/16 and CS 9599/16, as already noted, on the ground that the issue involved "a trivial issue of law and order, which could be conveniently disposed of without prejudice to the parties". The impugned order reveals that the learned Pr DSJ was inclined to allow the transfer petition as the three suits pertain to different portions of the same property.

6. I have heard Mr. Anuj Kumar Garg, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Diwakar Singh, learned Counsel for Respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. Siddhant Asthana, learned Counsel for Respondent 3.

7. Mr. Garg, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit property in the three suits could not be treated as the same, as the suits pertain to different floors of one property. That apart, he submits that the learned Pr DSJ acted in undue haste in allowing the transfer petition, despite a bonafide request for adjournment made on this behalf.

8. As against this, learned Counsel for the respondents contend that no prejudice could have been said to have been caused to the petitioner, as the learned Pr DSJ merely ensured that all suits would be heard by one Court, and did not even direct consolidation of the suits. Inasmuch as the suits pertain to three floors of one property, learned Counsel for the respondents submit that, on merits, the impugned order was completely justified. The learned Pr DSJ had, in their submission, acted in the best interests of justice in order to obviate any possibility of conflicting decisions and in order to ensure that the suits proceeded expeditiously to their destined conclusion.

9. The impugned order having been passed on merits, after granting the petitioner an opportunity to file his response to the transfer petition filed by the respondents, it is submitted that, in exer