JUDGMENT 1. - The instant writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners challenging the order dated 8.3.2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Udaipur in Civil Original Case No. 9/2012, whereby, the application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. filed by the defendant-respondents was allowed and the suit filed by the petitioners was rejected. 2. At the outset, it would be relevant to mention here that the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Udaipur on an application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. is challengable by way of an appeal under Section 96 C.P.C. and the petitioners have already availed the said remedy by filing S.B. Civil Regular First Appeal No. 258/2013, which is pending consideration before this Court. 3. The instant writ petition has been preferred with the allegations that the impugned order was passed without providing appropriate opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and by making interpolations in the Trial Court's record. Affidavits of the petitioners as well as their Counsel in the Trial Court have been filed in support of these allegations. It has been pleaded in the writ petition that the date fixed before the Trial Court for consideration of the application was 28.2.2013. On that day, as per the learned Counsel, the matter was adjourned to 8.3.2013 and the said date was noted by the petitioners' Counsel in his diary. 4. Thereafter, keeping the petitioners in dark, the date was altered to 6.3.2013. Neither the petitioners nor the petitioners' Counsel were aware of the fact that the date of hearing was altered to 6.3.2013. 5. The learned Trial Court recorded in the order sheet dated 6.3.2013 that the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties were heard on the application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. The matter was thereafter posted for orders on 8.3.2013. On that day, the application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. filed by the defendant-respondents was allowed. Thus, it has been alleged that interpolation was made in the Court's record and the application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. was allowed without providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 6. Looking to the seriousness of the allegations viz. On that day, the application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. filed by the defendant-respondents was allowed. Thus, it has been alleged that interpolation was made in the Court's record and the application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. was allowed without providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 6. Looking to the seriousness of the allegations viz. alteration in the order sheets of the Trial Court, this Court vide order dated 24.4.2014 directed an explanation to be summoned from the Presiding Officer of the concerned Trial Court, in pursuance to the said direction, an explanation dated 5.5.2014 has been received from the Presiding Officer. The relevant portions of the explanation are quoted hereinunder:- " 1- ;g iw.kZr% vlR;] fujk/kkj ,oa eux<+Ur gSa fd fnukad 6-3-2013 dks vf/koDrk oknh us U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr gksdj cgl ugha dh gks ;k mudh mifLFkfr xyr fy[kh x;h gks] mUgksaus mifLFkr xyr fy[kh x;h gks] mUgksaus mifLFkr gksdj u dsoy cgl dh oju~ ml fnu QnZ ds lkFk ,d nLrkost Hkh is'k fd;k Fkk] foLr`r fooj.k vkxs vafdr gSA 2- ;g fd vf/koDrk oknh }kjk viuh cgl ds leFkZu esa 22 U;kf;d n`"VkUr is'k fd;s x;s Fks ftudk mYys[k ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 8-3-2013 esa foLr`r :i ls gSaA 3- ;g Hkh iw.kZr% vlR;] fujk/kkj ,oa eux<+Ur gS fd v/kksgLrk{kjdrkZ }kjk vknsf'kdk fnukad 28-2-2013 esa vkxkeh rkjh[k is'kh dks cnyk x;k gks oju~ v/kksgLrk{kjdrkZ rks fnukad 28-2-2013 dks vodkaa'k ij Fkk] foLr`r fooj.k ,oa oLrq fLFkfr bl izdkj ls gSA 4- ;g fd vkns'k fnukad 8-3-2013 ds iSjk la[;k 1 esa gh ;g Li"V gS fd bl vkns'k ls izfroknh la[;k 2 rFkk 10 vFkkZr nks i`Fkd&i`Fkd i{kdkjksa ds i`Fkd&i`Fkd vf/koDrkx.k }kjk is'k] nks i`Fkd&i`Fkd izkFkZuk i= vUrxZr vkns'k 7 fu;e 11 lh0ih0lh0 dk fuLrkj.k fd;k x;k FkkA izfroknh la[;k 10 ds i'pkrorhZ izFkZuk i= ds dkQh le; iwoZ] izfroknh la[;k 2 dk izkFkZuk i= is'k gks pqdk Fkk vkSj nksuksa izkFkZuk i= leku vfHkopuksa ds FksA bl izdkj vkns'k fnukad 8-3-2013 ls ,dek= izfroknh la[;k 10 ds izkFkZuk i= vUrxZr vkns'k 7 fu;e 11 lh0ih0lh0 dk gh fuLrkj.k ugha fd;k x;k oju~ nks izkFkZuk i=ksa dk fuLrkj.k fd;k x;k FkkA " 7. It has also been mentioned in the explanation that earlier also, on 1.11.2013, the arguments on the application were heard in extenso. It has also been mentioned in the explanation that earlier also, on 1.11.2013, the arguments on the application were heard in extenso. The Presiding Officer has specifically mentioned in the explanation that on 28.2.2013, he was on leave and the order sheets were not written under his directions or signed by him. The cuttings which are visible on the order sheets were made by the clerk concerned at the request of the learned Counsel for the parties because both of them requested to change the date from 8.3.2013 to 6.3.2013. The explanation of the concerned clerk has also been annexed with the Presiding Officers' explanation. 8. From the contents of the explanation, it is apparent that when the matter was heard by the Presiding Officer on 6.3.2013, there was no occasion for him to have entertained any doubts about the date fixed in the file. The Presiding Officer has specifically mentioned in para No. 1 of the explanation that the Counsel who has furnished the affidavit in support of the writ petition filed a document along with a presentation letter in the Court on 6.3.2013. The presentation letter bears an acknowledgment dated 6.3.2013. 9. In the affidavit, which was filed by Shri Hiralal, the petitioners' Counsel before the Trial Court in support of the writ petition, there is no reference regarding the presentation of the document in the Court on 6.3.2013. Obviously, while swearing the first affidavit, it escaped notice of the learned Counsel that he had filed the document before the Court on that day. It is only after the explanation received from the Presiding Officer was opened, this fact came to light. At that stage, learned Counsel Shri Tribhuwan Gupta appearing on behalf of the petitioners sought a short adjournment to counter these allegations. 10. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that on 6.3.2013, the Advocates at Udaipur were observing strike and, therefore, the petitioners' Counsel did not appear before the Trial Court on that day. Thus, as per him, all the proceedings recorded by the Trial Court in the file on 6.3.2013 are including the presentation of the documents are patently erroneous and incorrect. To counter this submission, an affidavit has been filed by the respondents' Counsel in the Trial Court, wherein, it has been mentioned that the date of 8.3.2013 was altered by the Court Master at the request of the petitioners' Counsel. To counter this submission, an affidavit has been filed by the respondents' Counsel in the Trial Court, wherein, it has been mentioned that the date of 8.3.2013 was altered by the Court Master at the request of the petitioners' Counsel. On 6.3.2013, the petitioners' Counsel appeared before the Trial Court and requested that the detailed arguments had been heard previously on the application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. and, thus, the matter be placed for orders. 11. Today, an affidavit has been filed by the petitioners' Counsel in the Trial Court, wherein, a plea was taken that the document was not filed on 6.3.2013. In support of the affidavit, a photo state copy of the Counsel's file cover has been annexed. A bare perusal of the notings made by the learned Counsel on the file cover is sufficient to convince this Court that the notings have been altered in order to substantiate the frivolous allegations made in the writ petition against the Presiding Officer of the Trial Court. In the Counsel's order sheet dated 17.1.2013, it is noted that the matter is adjourned for filing of the list. The noting dated 17.1.2013 on the Counsel's file cover reads as under:- " 17-1-2013 U;k;ky; lwph is'k djus dk fuosnu fd;kA okLrs is'k djus lwphA " The noting dated 11.2.2013 reads as under:- " 11-2-2013 lwph is'k djus dk volj pkgkA okLrs is'k djus lwph ,oa izfroknh la[;k 10 dh vksj ls izkFkZuk i= Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. dk is'k fd;kA okLrs tokc izkFkZuk i= ,oa cgl lwph is'k dh xbZA " 12. The second part of the noting which is underlined apparently appears to have been inserted later on. This Court is of the firm opinion that certain additions were made in notings on the Counsel's file cover in order to substantiate the patently false facts set out in the writ petition. 13. Be that as it may, this Court feels that the allegations made by the petitioners and the affidavit of the learned Counsel appearing before the Trial Court against the Presiding Officer that the matter was heard behind the back of the Counsel are patently unfounded. 13. Be that as it may, this Court feels that the allegations made by the petitioners and the affidavit of the learned Counsel appearing before the Trial Court against the Presiding Officer that the matter was heard behind the back of the Counsel are patently unfounded. The Presiding Officer in his explanation has also mentioned that as many as 22 citations were relied upon by the petitioners; Counsel and all of them were referred to in the order accepting the application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that no violation of principles of natural justice was committed by the learned Trial Court whilst deciding the application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. In the opinion of this Court, the allegations made by the petitioners against the Court in this writ petition are malicious and unfounded. 15. Resultantly, the writ petition as well as the stay petition being bereft of any force are hereby dismissed.However, it is made clear that none of the observations made hereinabove shall affect the merits of the case.Petition dismissed. *******