Rajiv Narain Raina, J. - (1.) THE petitioners themselves asked for transfer of the two cases i.e. Suit No. 377 of 2004 (Dharambir and others vs. Manohar Lal and others) and Suit No. 266 of 2007 ((M/s. Unitech Industries Ltd. And others vs. Avdesh Kumar Pandey and others)) and they were so transferred by the order of the learned District Judge, Gurgaon. They cannot now complain that Suit No. 377 of 2004 (Dharambir and others vs. Manohar Lal and others) has been decreed on 30 September, 2013 and the second suit (M/s. Unitech Industries Ltd. and others vs. Avdesh Kumar Pandey and others) filed by the petitioners remains pending. Adverse findings have been returned against the party in Dharambir's case, supra. Learned counsel admits that in Dharambir's case supra, his clients were impleaded by court order as party -defendants no. 24 to 27 and aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned trial court, the appeal has been filed before the learned Additional District Judge. After the result of the first suit was known, an application was preferred for transfer of Civil Suit No. 266 of 2007 titled M/s. Unitech Industries Ltd. and others vs. Avdesh Kumar Pandey and others from the court of Shri Amberdeep Singh, Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Gurgaon who had rendered decision in Dharambir's case, supra. In paragraphs 3 and 4 of the application, the plaintiffs have stated as follows: - 3. That there were two matters regarding the same property before the Hon'ble Trial Court of Sh. Amberdeep Singh, Civil Judge (JD), Gurgaon. In one matter titled as 'Dharambir & Ors. vs. Manohar & Ors' in which the plaintiff/applicant company were impleaded as defendant no. 24 to 27. The issue in the said suit was regarding the validity of a decree passed by one Smt. Gurji. In the said suit the property in dispute is one and the same and the said suit was decreed by the trial court of Sh. Amberdeep Singh, against the pleadings and interest of the plaintiff/applicants and the plaintiff/applicant has preferred an appeal against the said judgment and decree passed in favour of Dharambir & Others. As a result of which the Hon'ble Trial Court has already formed its opinion regarding the decision of the present case, despite the merit in the case of the plaintiff/applicant. It is also stated that the Hon'ble Court has several time expressed its opinion that the present case is similar in nature to the earlier suit, in fact which is not because the stand of the applicant/plaintiff is of a bonafide purchaser. However, because of the formed opinion of the Trial Court, the applicant/plaintiffs have reasonable apprehension of not getting the justice from the trial court where the suit is pending. 4. That the applicant/plaintiff has all apprehension that the forming of the opinion on the basis of different facts of the earlier case is going to make wrong decision and injustice. As such it is necessary and would be proper that some other trial court considers the merit of the case independently without being influenced by the earlier decision in any manner. The apprehension is not justiciable in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India when once the petitioners admit that the earlier suit was on different facts and because of such different facts, then the petitioners should not be heard to say that the same trial Judge is going to make a wrong decision and therefore, injustice would follow. This is absolutely no reason to transfer the matter from one court to another. The apprehension is misplaced and misconceived. If the petitioners were the author of the transfer of the two cases to one Court, then they should have taken all steps to guard their interest before the learned trial court praying for judgment in both the cases on the same day. They cannot now seek transfer of the case from one court to another. We trust our trial judges in the dispensation of justice. Transfer of cases is not to be casually ordered. I find no ground for interference in the impugned order dated 21.3.2014 passed by the learned District Judge, Gurgaon.
(2.) FOR the foregoing reasons, this petition is dismissed. However, nothing said in this order would prejudice the mind of the learned trial court while deciding the pending suit. The learned trial judge would pass the judgment after appreciating the evidence on record and hearing the learned counsel for both the parties.;