Judgment

Mr. Vikram Aggarwal, J.

The present revision petition assails the order dated 11.08.2023, passed by the District Judge, Gurugram, vide which the transfer application filed by the present petitioners seeking transfer of Civil Suit No. CS/1615/2023, titled as Rishabh Birla and others Vs. Mrs. Raj Bala and another , from the Court of Sh. Harsh Kumar Singh, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram, to some other Court of competent jurisdiction was dismissed.

2. The facts, as emanating from the revision petition are that a civil suit for possession by way of specific performance along with declaration and permanent injunction was filed by respondents no.1 and 2-plaintiffs against the present petitioners and proforma respondents no.3 and 4. An application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was filed by proforma respondent no.3. At the time of arguments, the present petitioners also sought an opportunity to address arguments on the said application, which according to the petitioners was denied by the Court. This raised an apprehension in the minds of the present petitioners that they would not get justice from the Court. Some heated exchange of words is also said to have taken place. Under the circumstances, the petitioners preferred a transfer petition, which was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Gurugram, leading to the filing of the present revision petition.

3. Though, notice of motion has not been issued, Mr. Chandan Deep Singh Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of respondents no.1 and 2 and has filed his power of attorney. Mr. Shiva Handa, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no.3 and has filed his memorandum of appearance.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously urged that because of the fact that the petitioners were denied an opportunity of hearing by the trial Court and the matter was straightway fixed for orders on the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the petitioners are having an apprehension that they will not get justice from the Court concerned. Under the circumstances, they moved an application for transfer, which was also rejected by the District Judge, Gurugram. It has been submitted that the matter was not examined from the correct perspective and that the transfer application, should, in-fact, have been allowed.

5. Learned counsel representing respondents no.1 and 2 has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners submitting that the trial Court has been adjourning the matter after 21.07.2023 only on the ground of pendency of the transfer application and subsequently on the request made by the present petitioners that a revision petition was being filed against the order passed by the District Judge, Gurugram. Learned counsel submits that the apprehension expressed by the petitioners is unfounded and that the trial Court did not display any haste.

6. Learned counsel for proforma respondent no.3 has, however, supported the case of the petitioners.

7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the issue in hand. The issue seems to have arisen on 21.07.2023 when arguments on the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC were being addressed. The order dated 21.07.2023 is on record as Annexure P-3. It reads as under:-

“The case was fixed for arguments on application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. The same has been addressed by the learned counsel for applicant/defendant no. 3 and respondents/plaintiffs before lunch break as well as after lunch break. Arguments of learned counsel for applicant/defendant no. 3 and the learned counsel for respondents/plaintiffs lasted for more than two hours. At this juncture, Sh. Sandeep Phogat learned counsel for defendants no. 1 & 2 already present before the Court has s