ORDER : 1. Respondent in S.C.Nos.567/2013 and 568/2013 has filed these petitions seeking for transfer of the said proceedings pending on the file of XXI ACMM and XXIII ASCJ, Bengaluru to any other court. 2. Facts in brief leading to filing of these petitions are as under: Respondent herein has filed two suits for ejectment in S.C.No.567/2013 and 568/2013 against the defendants/petitioners herein. On service of suit summons, petitioners herein appeared and have filed their respective written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and also disputing the relationship of landlord and tenant. These petitions have been filed contending inter alia that Presiding Officer is highly prejudiced against the petitioners/defendants, and as such they have sought for transfer of Small Causes suits to any other court. 3. I have heard the arguments of Sri Manish Sanghvi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/defendants and Sri K.P.Thrimurthy, appearing for respondent/plaintiff. 4. It is the contention of Mr.Sanghvi/Manish, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner that an application for amendment of the written statement was filed/came to be allowed on 10.12.2015 on cost of Rs.1,000/- and the matter was posted for respondent’s evidence on 07.01.2016 and 18.01.2016. He submits when the matter was taken up on 29.01.2016, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint came to be filed by defendant which was dismissed on 23.02.2016, imposing a cost of Rs.5,000/- and trial Court listed the matter on 04.03.2016 for arguments of defendants. Though, as per order sheet dated 07.01.2016 and 18.01.2016 it ought to have been posted for crossexamination of PW1. Hence, it is contended that in haste, learned Presiding Officer has posted the case for arguments on behalf of the defendants and subsequently an application came to be filed for recall of PW1, which was allowed on a cost of Rs.4,500/-, for which petitioner filed an application under Section 151 of CPC to reduce the cost and also apprehending that he will not get fair trial and impartial justice at the hands of the said court a memo was filed. 5. 5. It is further contended that plaintiff i.e., respondent herein has claimed in the market that he would get an order of eviction at the hands of the petitioner/defendants and has openly declared that he will get favourable orders even without evidence or crossexamination of defendants and as such, defendants were shocked and surprised when the case was posted for judgment on 30.10.2017, that too, without hearing the arguments or permitting the petitioner to crossexamine the plaintiff. 6. It is the further allegation of the defendant that whenever applications are filed by the plaintiff, learned Presiding Officer has allowed the same on payment of meager costs of Rs.150/and whenever defendant filed an application, it came to allowed on cost of Rs.5,000/and this would only indicate that learned Presiding Officer was prejudiced. He would also submit that plaintiff had filed three applications for production of the documents under Order 7 Rule 14(3), under Section 151 of CPC and under Order 18 Rule 17, which came to be allowed on payment of cost of Rs.300/each, as per order dated 15.09.2017 and a memo filed on 16.09.2017 by the defendant stating thereunder that defendant intends to file a revision petition before the High Court and yet Presiding officer permitted the plaintiff to adduce evidence and mark the documents and thereafter without permitting the petitioner to crossexamine PW1, has posted the matter for arguments on 04.10.2017, on which date, learned advocates were on strike and even without hearing the arguments on main, had posted the matter for judgment on 30.10.2017. Hence, expressing apprehension, which according to the petitioner is reasonable that he will not get a fair, natural, impartial and unbiased justice at the hands of the XXIII Additional Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru and the learned Judge was having full sympathy to the respondent/plaintiff since he was allowing the I.As. filed by plaintiff and rejecting the applications filed by the defendants and that too levying/imposing heavy costs and thereby petitioner’s apprehension that he would not get fair justice was fortified. Hence, on these grounds petitioner he seeks for transfer of the ejectment suits to any other court. 7. filed by plaintiff and rejecting the applications filed by the defendants and that too levying/imposing heavy costs and thereby petitioner’s apprehension that he would not get fair justice was fortified. Hence, on these grounds petitioner he seeks for transfer of the ejectment suits to any other court. 7. Reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, learned counsel appearing for petitioner/defendant has contended that learned Judge is extending step-motherly to defendants and threatening them and without even hearing arguments is passing favourable orders in favour of plaintiffs and thereby depriving the petitioner of natural and impartial justice. On these grounds, he has sought for transfer of S.C.No.561/2013. 8. In C.P.No.292/2017, the defendant in S.C.No.568/2013, is also seeking for transfer of said suit pending on the file of the XXI ACMM and XXIII ASCJ, Bengaluru to any other court, contending that there is a serious dispute with regard to the relationship of landlord and tenant between parties and the saledeed set up by the plaintiff to evict the defendant is a sham, nominal and camouflage saledeeds. These are the pleas put forth in the written statement filed by the defendant and contends that in this background an application for amendment of the written statement was filed which came to be allowed on 10.12.2015 on a cost of Rs.1,000/- and when the matter was posted for plaintiff’s evidence on 07.01.2016, 18.01.2016 and on 29.01.2016, defendant had filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 to reject the plaint, which came to be rejected on 23.02.2016, imposing cost of Rs.5,000/- and though matter ought to have been posted for crossexamination of PW1, yet, the learned trial Judge, without posting the matter for crossexamination of PW1 or for recording of the evidence of defendant, in haste, had posted the matter for arguments on behalf of defendant’s side. Hence, it is contended that these acts of learned Presiding Officer clearly discloses that he was prejudiced against the defendant from the beginning and same is a justifiable ground for defendant to seek for transfer of the suit, which would allay the apprehension expressed by the defendant. Reiterating the grounds urged in C.P.No. 292/2017, petitioner has sought for transfer of S.C.No.568/2013 to any other court. 9. Reiterating the grounds urged in C.P.No. 292/2017, petitioner has sought for transfer of S.C.No.568/2013 to any other court. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner had filed additional affidavit on 27.11.2017 and on perusing the said affidavit, Registrar (Judicial) was directed to secure the report from the jurisdictional Court with regard to the allegations made in the affidavit filed by the petitioner before this Court. Plaintiff on appearance had filed counter affidavit by denying the averments made in the petition. 10. This Court, at the time of issuing notice to the respondent, had directed the Registrar (Judicial) to secure a report from the Judicial Officer before whom suits are pending with regard to the affidavit filed by the petitioner before this Court since certain allegations had been made against the judicial officer in the said affidavit. Accordingly, report was called for by the Registrar (Judicial) and same has been secured and it is placed on record. The reportreply submitted by the learned Judicial Officer has also been perused by me. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on service of notice, has filed objections to the petition which has also been perused by this Court. 11. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of records, this Court is of the considered view that following points would arise for consideration: (i) Whether petitioners have made out sufficient grounds to transfer S.C.Nos.567/2013 and 568/2013 pending on the file of the XXI ACMM and XXIII ASCJ, Bengaluru to any other court? (ii) What order? 12. It is trite law that where a reasonable apprehension is expressed by a party to the suit or judicial proceedings that he/she may not get justice from the court where the suit/matter is pending, the court examining such prayer would normally put itself into such party’s arm chair and examine as to whether such apprehension is reasonable apprehension which would arise in the mind of a normal prudent person or a litigant. An apprehension which a right minded person can entertain can be recorded as a ground for holding that Judge is really biased. However, mere surmises, conjectures and apprehensions without any basis when raised, are not a ground enough to consider such request for transfer. The reasonable circumstances enabling the party to seek for transfer should be of such nature permitting reasonable man to think that such circumstance is really existing or may be existing. However, mere surmises, conjectures and apprehensions without any basis when raised, are not a ground enough to consider such request for transfer. The reasonable circumstances enabling the party to seek for transfer should be of such nature permitting reasonable man to think that such circumstance is really existing or may be existing. 13. Under the guise of seeking a transfer the petitioner/applicant would have no right to bring the authority or court into a ridicule or disrepute. Imputation of calculated allegation of affecting the administration of justice cannot be condoned under the garb of seeking transfer of a matter. For the administration of justice, any apprehension expressed by a litigant about not getting justice at the hands of the court will have to be examined as a matter of course but with circumspection and any apprehension expressed by a litigant merely because he has received an adverse order at intervals would not fortify such apprehension and such apprehension expressed should have got crystallized itself into a situation which may ultimately lead to a conclusion that apprehension expressed by the litigant before the court deserves merit. 14. The Hon’ble Apex Court in P.K.GHOSH, I.A.S. AND ANOTHER vs. J.G.RAJPUT reported in AIR 1996 SC 513 has held that if there be a basis which cannot be treated as unreasonable for a litigant to expect that his matter should not be heard by a particular judge and there is no compelling necessity, such as the absence of an alternative, it is appropriate that the learned judge should recuse himself from the Bench hearing that matter. It has been held as under: “9. A basic postulate of the rule of law is that “justice should not only be done but it must also be seen to be done.” If there be a basis which cannot be treated as unreasonable for a litigant to expect that his matter should not be heard by a particular Judge and there is no compelling necessity, such as the absence of an alternative, it is appropriate that the learned Judge should recuse himself from the Bench hearing that mater. This step is required to be taken by the learned Judge not because he is likely to be influenced in any manner in doing justice in the cause, but because his hearing the matter is likely to give rise to a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the litigant that the mind of the learned Judge, may be subconsciously, has been influenced by some extraneous factor in making the decision, particularly if it happens to be in favour of the opposite party. Credibility in the functioning of the justice delivery system and the reasonable perception of the affected parties are relevant considerations to ensure the continuance of public confidence in the credibility and impartiality of the judiciary. This is necessary not only for doing justice but also for ensuring that justice is seen to be done.” 15. It is also to be kept in mind that courts cannot read into the minds of the parties and ascertain as to whether their apprehension is reasonable or otherwise by administering justice. The court examining the prayer for transfer would be guided by the records available before it and they would speak for themselves. A mere apprehension itself could not be sufficient and something much more than this alleged apprehension which has crystallized itself, which amounts to prejudice alone could be a ground or criteria on the basis of which such apprehension can be held to be proportionate and reasonable to such apprehension. 16. Hon’ble Apex Court in MANEKA SANJAY GANDHI AND ANOTHER vs. RANI JETHMALANI reported in AIR 1979 SC 468 has held assurance of fair trial is the first imperative of the dispensation of justice and the central criterion for the court to consider when a motion for transfer is made. It has been held as under: “Assurance of a fair trial is the first imperative of the dispensation of justice and the central criterion for the court to consider when a motion for transfer is made is not the hypersensitivity or relative convenience of a party or easy availability of legal services or like minigrievances. Something more substantial, more compelling, more imperilling, from the point of view of public justice and its attendant environment, is necessitous if the Court is to exercise its power of transfer. This is the cardinal principle although the circumstances may be myriad and vary from case to case. Something more substantial, more compelling, more imperilling, from the point of view of public justice and its attendant environment, is necessitous if the Court is to exercise its power of transfer. This is the cardinal principle although the circumstances may be myriad and vary from case to case. We have to test the petitioner's grounds on this touchstone bearing in mind the rule that normally the complainant has the right to choose any court having jurisdiction and the accused cannot dictate where the case against him should be tried. Even so, the process of justice should not harass the parties and from that angle the court may weigh the circumstances.” 17. Keeping the aforesaid principles in mind, the facts on hand are required to be examined, particularly in the background of allegations made by the petitioner denied by the respondent and also in the background of the report forwarded by the concerned Presiding Officer which has been placed on record, whereunder allegations made in the Petition/Affidavit has been declared upon by the learned Presiding Officer. 18. At the outset it requires to be noticed that though allegations relating to the present Presiding Officer is also made in these petitions, there are certain allegations made by the petitioner against the previous Presiding Officer also. The previous Presiding Officer although has been transferred during October 2016 and the present Presiding Officer has taken charge had continued with the proceedings in respect of Small Causes Suits filed by the plaintiff. 19. Hence, at this juncture itself it would be proper and apt to state that defendants in both these petitions had filed Misc. Petition in Misc.Nos.259/2016 and 260/2016 for transfer of these two (2) suits making certain allegations against the previous Presiding Officer also. Copies of the said petitions have been annexed to the counter affidavits filed by the plaintiff which is at Annexure R1 in both the counter affidavits. Firstly, the averments made in those petitions i.e., Misc.Nos.259/2016 and 260/2016 filed before the Court of Chief Judge of Small Causes Court, Bengaluru when compared with the allegations made in the present petitions i.e., C.P.Nos.291/2017 and 292/2017, it would clearly indicate that averments made in paragraphs 6 to 12 and 13 are similar, identical and replica of the averments made in paragraphs 5 to 11 and 14 of these two (2) petitions. To put it differently, the words, sentences and phraseology of the pleadings in both the petitions viz., the allegations made against the previous Presiding Officer and the allegation made against the present Presiding Officer are identical, similar and one and the same. The abovesaid petitions which were filed, namely Misc.Nos.259/2016 and 260/2016 against the previous Presiding Officer, it has been specifically alleged the then Presiding Officer was prejudiced and defendants were having reasonable apprehension that they will not get fair, natural, impartial and unbiased justice in the hands of the said Presiding Officer. So also is the allegation made in the present petitions. 20. Ignoring the abovesaid facts for a moment and keeping the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in P.K.GHOSH (supra) referred to above wherein it has been held by their Lordships in the authoritative pronouncement that “A basic postulate of the rule of law is that `justice should not only be done but it must also be seen to be done, credibility in the functioning of the justice delivery system and the reasonable Perception of the affected parties are relevant considerations to ensure the continuance of public confidence in the credibility and impartiality of the judiciary. This is necessary not only for doing justice but also for ensuring that justice is seen to be done”. Hence, the prayer for transfer being sought for by defendants is independently examined. 21. It is being further examined as to whether apprehensions expressed by the petitioner making similar allegations against the subsequent Presiding Officer is a apprehension which a reasonable prudent man would get in his mind or not. At the same time, it requires to be noticed that while examining such prayer for transfer of a case, is based on set of allegations made against such Presiding Officer, then report received from the said Presiding Officer which had been called for will also have to be examined and such scrutiny would be confined to the allegations made against the impartiality or fairness of the Judge and not with respect to the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by him/her during the course of dispensation of such justice. 22. As noticed hereinabove, the present Presiding Officer having taken charge during October 2016, the allegations made pursuant to the present Presiding Officer taking over charge alone are to be examined and considered. 23. 22. As noticed hereinabove, the present Presiding Officer having taken charge during October 2016, the allegations made pursuant to the present Presiding Officer taking over charge alone are to be examined and considered. 23. As could be seen from the order sheet, defendants being aggrieved by the order of rejection of the applications filed by them under Order 11 Rule 14 read with Section 151 of CPC and under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC vide orders dated 10.08.2015 and 23.02.2016 had filed CRP Nos.115/2016 and 114/2016 before this Court. Said revision petitions came to be dismissed by this Court on 31.07.2017. Subsequently, defendants filed one more application contending that there is no jural relationship between the parties, which was resisted to and the said application also came to be dismissed. Thereafter, defendants filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 CPC praying for striking out the name of the defendant from the status of defendant, which also came to be dismissed by order dated 30.08.2017. The report received from the Judicial Officer which has been perused by this Court with reference to the order sheet maintained by the learned Presiding Officer in the respective cases on being looked into, it would clearly emerge that after the present Presiding Officer took charge for the first time, an application came to be filed by the defendants on 12.01.2017, under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking recall of PW1 for crossexamination. Said application came to be allowed on cost of Rs.250/on the ground that when the matter was posted for defendants’ evidence, the application in question had been filed. Thus, the allegation made by the defendants/petitioners that learned Presiding Officer has levied cost of Rs.4,000/or 5,000/is bereft of truth. The defendants had filed one more application on 30.01.2017 under Order 8 Rule 1(a) read with Section 151 of CPC with other two applications under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC, which were also allowed on payment of cost of Rs.150/each. It is thereafter, defendants filed one more application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of CPC to strike out the defendant’s name from the suit which came to be dismissed on 30.08.2017 without levying costs. It is thereafter, defendants filed one more application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of CPC to strike out the defendant’s name from the suit which came to be dismissed on 30.08.2017 without levying costs. It is thereafter, defendants filed one more application on 01.09.2017 under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC for recalling of DW1 for further examination-in-chief, which came to be allowed on 04.09.2017 without cost though plaintiff orally objected to it. As such, allegations made by the defendants that present Presiding Officer was imposing costs of Rs.4,000/- or Rs.5,000/- is contrary to records and without any basis whatsoever. The reply submitted by the Presiding Officer in the original records as under: “At the outset, I specifically deny all the allegations made against me in the affidavit filed by Smt.Indra Devi in C.P.No.291/2017. Except in para Nos.9, 10, 11 and 12, the allegations made in other paras of her affidavit are not related to me. Smt.Indra Devi has twisted the facts to her convenient and has filed false and misrepresenting affidavit before the Hon’ble High Court. In para No.9, she has alleged that whenever I have passed orders on applications filed by her, I have imposed cost of Rs.5000 or 4000 and whenever I have passed orders on the applications filed by the plaintiff I have imposed only cost of Rs.100 to 300. But this allegation made in the affidavit is an utter false and baseless. Because, I never, at any point of time, imposed cost of Rs.4000 or 5000 on the applications filed by the defendant. After I am assuming charges, the defendant for the first time filed an application before me on 12.01.2017 under Order 18 Rule 17 read with 151 of CPC seeking recall of PW1 for cross examination. The said application was allowed on cost of Rs.250/. Since the said application was filed when the matter was posted for defendant’s evidence, cost were imposed. However, it is not on cost of Rs.4000 or 5000 as alleged by defendant in her affidavit. The defendant, again on 30.01.2017, has filed another application under Order 8 Rule 1A read with 151 of CPC along with other two recall applications under Order 18 Rule 17 and Section 151 of CPC. I have allowed all those applications only on cost of Rs.150/. The defendant, again on 30.01.2017, has filed another application under Order 8 Rule 1A read with 151 of CPC along with other two recall applications under Order 18 Rule 17 and Section 151 of CPC. I have allowed all those applications only on cost of Rs.150/. But it is not on cost of Rs.4000 or 5000 as alleged by defendant in her affidavit. The defendant has also filed another application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of CPC to strike out her name from the suit. The said application was disposed off on 30.08.2017 without cost. The defendant again on 01.09.2017 filed application under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC to recall DW1 for further chief examination. The said application was also again allowed without costs. As such, at any point of time, I have not imposed cost of Rs.4000 or 5000 while disposing the applications filed by the defendant. Therefore, defendant/ Smt.Indra Devi has sworn to a false affidavit and stated utter false in para 9 of her affidavit.” 25. In so far as allegation made that inspite of memo having been filed after order came to be passed on 23.09.2017 permitting the plaintiff to adduce further evidence which was sought to be challenged by the defendants before this Court, the learned Presiding Officer had proceeded with the marking of the documents is examined with reference to the order sheet maintained by trial Court in the said proceedings. Perusal of the order sheet of this Court would disclose that applications filed for recall or reopening, tendering and production of additional documents came to be allowed on 15.09.2017 on payment of cost of Rs.300/each and it was adjourned to 16.09.2017 for further chief of PW1. On the said date i.e., 16.09.2017, a memo came to be filed by the defendants and as such, Presiding Officer adjourned the matter to 23.09.2017 and on 23.09.2017, there was no order of stay of further proceedings and there being no embargo for the Presiding Officer to receive the additional evidence, he has proceeded to examine PW1 by recalling further examination-in-chief and has got the document marked viz., Ex.P15 and then adjourned the matter to 03.10.2017 for crossexamination of PW1. In other words, learned Judge has extended opportunity to defendants to effectively and sufficiently defend themselves in the interest of justice and without any infraction of principles of natural justice. As such, contention of learned advocates appearing for the petitioners that Presiding Officer inspite of being informed that defendants would challenge the order dated 15.09.2017, yet the Presiding Officer went on to record further evidence of PW1 is without any substance and liable to be rejected and accordingly it is rejected. 26. It would also be necessary to note that two applications under Section 151 CPC and under Order XVI Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC came to be filed by defendants to recall the order dated 06.03.2017 and to reopen the case for issuance of summons to the witnesses mentioned in the application to give evidence was examined by the trial Court on merits and found that said applications were frivolous applications and they had been filed to drag on the proceedings and as such, by observing as under said applications came to be rejected. “It is made clear to defendant that, this Court has taken note of the attitude of the defendant in dragging the case by making one or other application. Therefore, defendant is strictly directed to argue the matter by next date of hearing without fail as the present case is oldest one on the board of this Court. Call for arguments by 24.03.2017.” 27. However, without proceeding to address final argument and after taking several adjournments, yet another application was filed under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of CPC to strike out his name from the status of defendant in the suit had been filed, which ended in its rejection and the said order has also been affirmed by this Court. It would be necessary to note that defendants by using trick and strategy before the trial Court were protracting the proceedings on one pretext or the other and one such method which they adopted was filing a memo before the trial Court for referring the matter to mediation. It would be necessary to note that defendants by using trick and strategy before the trial Court were protracting the proceedings on one pretext or the other and one such method which they adopted was filing a memo before the trial Court for referring the matter to mediation. As such, both suits came to be referred to the mediation and for two long months, dispute was kept pending before Mediation Centre and ultimately it did not yield any fruitful result and after successfully ensuring that by default the matter would get adjourned, the proceedings from the mediation Centre landed back to the Court as could be seen from Paragraph 12 of the report of the learned trial Judge. The reply given by the trial Judge in this regard reads: “The order sheet clearly indicates the attitude of defendant for dragging the case from the date of her appearance. At the first, the defendant did not come before this court immediately after service of summons. She appeared only after placing her exparte and filed application for setting aside the exparte. After many adjournments, when the matter was for evidence, the defendant filed joint memo requesting this court to refer the matter to the medication. But did not get the matter settled and somehow managed to see that two months time was elapsed. As such, defendant has misused the due process of law and court to a maximum extent. She has filed number of recall of applications. She has conducted the cross examination of PW1 in 7 installments, that too after taking number of adjournments mentioned above. She has also preferred revisions many times. But, no order has been get reversed. After filing the revisions now and then, she used to file memo seeking time on the ground that she has preferred revision. Many times, she has sought time by filing memo that she is intended to prefer the revision and transfer petitions. (copies of some such memos are produced for kind perusal and consideration as per document No.6). Apart from this, it is most humbly and respectfully brought to your lordships kind notice that, to reach quota in Small Causes Court, it is imperative to dispose off 80 contested or 50 uncontested Small Causes Cases (SC) or 50 MVC cases. (copies of some such memos are produced for kind perusal and consideration as per document No.6). Apart from this, it is most humbly and respectfully brought to your lordships kind notice that, to reach quota in Small Causes Court, it is imperative to dispose off 80 contested or 50 uncontested Small Causes Cases (SC) or 50 MVC cases. If the recall applications are filed repeatedly now and then it would not only affect that particular case, but it also causes damage to the management of the board very seriously. The court will not be in position to take up other maters for disposal and ultimately it would result in heavy pendency of cases. It also effect on accomplishing monthly quota. This delay would also crumble and diminish the trust of the litigants in the system.” 28. Yet another allegation made against the present Presiding Officer by the defendants is that on 04.10.2017, when the matter was listed from 03.10.2017 knowing fully that on the said date, advocates were on strike, yet, learned Judge of trial Court had posted the case for judgment. In fact there is no material placed by defendant on record to show that Advocates Association, Bangalore had in writing intimated the Principal Judge, Court of Small Causes about the proposed strike or the Registrar of Small Cause Court having been informed about the strike or the Presiding Officers of the Small Causes Court knew about the proposed strike of the learned advocate so that they could not have posted said matter on said date. Even otherwise, it requires to be noticed that when the matter was posted on 03.10.2017, least that was expected from the parties who were present before the Court was to seek for an adjournment by stating the factual position namely about advocates having gone on strike. However, the parties who were present had not stated so in S.C.No.561/2013 but stated in S.C.No.567/2013 which was also listed on 04.10.2017 as could be seen from the order sheet. Even otherwise, the order dated 04.10.2017 in S.C.No.567/2013 would disclose that on the said date the following order has been passed. “Both counsel absent. Parties present. Both do not pray time. Hence, posted for judgment to 30.10.2017 Sd/- 04.10.2017.” 29. Even otherwise, the order dated 04.10.2017 in S.C.No.567/2013 would disclose that on the said date the following order has been passed. “Both counsel absent. Parties present. Both do not pray time. Hence, posted for judgment to 30.10.2017 Sd/- 04.10.2017.” 29. An application under Section 151 of CPC was moved before the trial Judge on 21.10.2017 for advancing the case and at the request of defendant’s counsel, matter came to be preponed or advanced and it has been ordered. A memo was also filed by the defendant’s counsel on 21.10.2017 not with reference to the case being posted for judgment but with regard to allegation that defendant intended to file revision petition against the order permitting the plaintiff to lead further evidence and as such requested the Court to adjourn the matter on the ground that defendants intended to file transfer petition. By taking the said memo on record, learned Presiding Officer adjourned the matter to 26.10.2017 and on the said date, he has heard the petitioner and adjourned the matter to 30.10.2017 for hearing the defendant and on 30.10.2017, both were absent and as such, trial Judge has adjourned the matter to 04.11.2017 and detailed orders came to be passed on 04.11.2017 on the memo rejecting the said memo with costs of Rs.5,000/- and adjourned the matter to 27.11.2017 for judgment. On 27.11.2017, this Court had directed the trial Court not to pronounce the judgment until further orders from this Court in view of the fact that the present Civil Petitions had been filed. Thus, it could be seen from the order sheet of the trial Court that it is not the case of the petitioners that it was the plaintiff alone who had addressed his arguments on the main matter and defendant had been deprived of an opportunity. Learned Judge having taken note of the absence of both advocates have treated them equally and had not granted any opportunity even to plaintiff’s advocate and has proceeded to adjourn the matter for pronouncing the judgment. However, he could not pronounce the judgment because of the order of restraint passed by this Court on 27.11.2017. Learned Judge having taken note of the absence of both advocates have treated them equally and had not granted any opportunity even to plaintiff’s advocate and has proceeded to adjourn the matter for pronouncing the judgment. However, he could not pronounce the judgment because of the order of restraint passed by this Court on 27.11.2017. In that view of the matter, the alleged apprehension of the petitioners that he would not get fair justice at the hands of the said Presiding officer is only based on surmises and conjectures and such plea is raised only on account of adverse orders having been passed against defendants which was tested by defendants before this Court without success and as such, apprehension expressed by defendants have to be necessarily held as one without any merit and all contentions raised stands rejected. 30. For these myriad reasons, this Court is of the view that Point No.1 formulated hereinabove deserves to be answered against defendants by rejecting the prayer for transfer of the Small Causes Suits. 31. Point No.2: Cost should follow the cause is the basic principle which cannot be ignored in the instant case. Where the Court finds the claim as vexatious, then the Court imposes the cost. Such costs are indeed awarded in favour of successful party as otherwise the successful party would be made to defend the vexatious lis would go empty handed after defending his or her rights by expending money. 32. Sections 35, 35A and 35B of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is a complete answer to this proposition. Where the Court is satisfied that litigation was inspired by vexatious motives and the prayer is all together groundless, the Court is not without any power to take deterrent action against the person who instigates or initiate such unrighteous litigation. 33. Sections 35, 35A and 35B of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is a complete answer to this proposition. Where the Court is satisfied that litigation was inspired by vexatious motives and the prayer is all together groundless, the Court is not without any power to take deterrent action against the person who instigates or initiate such unrighteous litigation. 33. This view is supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of SALEM ADVOCATES BAR ASSOCIATION vs. UNION OF INDIA reported in AIR 2005 SC 3353 whereunder, while testing the challenge made to the constitutional validity of amendments carried out to the Code of Civil Procedure by Amendment Acts of 1999 and 2002 Apex Court has examined the scope of awarding costs and at Paragraph 32, it has been observed that it would all depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and the amended provision enables a Court to levy exemplary costs which cannot be found fault with, in as much as practice of the Courts to award only nominal costs even when adjournment on payment of costs is granted. It is further held when costs are awarded, it should be realistic and as far as possible, actual costs that had to be incurred by the other party shall be awarded where the adjournment is found to be avoidable but is being granted on account of either negligence or casual approach of a party and delay tactics are adopted. 34. Where litigant under the guise of prosecuting a case protracts the litigation by filing frivolous and vexatious petitions and applications, such litigant cannot be allowed to prosecute without costs being levied when prayer is negatived. In other words, opposite side deserves to be awarded cost on the principle of “costs should follow cause”. Award of costs is a matter of discretion which will have to be exercised in facts and circumstances of the case judiciously as held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.A.JAIS & COMPANY vs. GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD reported in AIR 1988 SC 254 . 35. Suits in question which are sought to be transferred from one Court to another are simple suits for ejectment filed by respondent herein and same has been pending before trial Court for the past five years. 35. Suits in question which are sought to be transferred from one Court to another are simple suits for ejectment filed by respondent herein and same has been pending before trial Court for the past five years. In fact, there are the oldest cases on the file of said trial Court as per the reply furnished by the Judicial Officer. Applications after applications are being filed by the petitioners in both the suits and many a times, respondent seems to have reluctantly consented for said applications being allowed, obviously to mitigate delay being occasioned. That apart, trial Court itself on several occasions has imposed costs ranging from Rs.150/to Rs.4000/while allowing such applications, yet again, to conclude the proceedings expeditiously. Despite all these efforts made by trial Court, petitioners in both the petitions have not only been filing memos before trial Court expressing thereunder that petitioners do not have confidence in the Presiding Officers whereunder orders adverse to them are passed, which would clearly disclose that such allegations are made against successive officers without there being any merit in such contentions or pleas. If such conduct of the parties are allowed to be continued by ignoring the reckless allegations made by them against courts, then, by such process, it would be embolden them and it would result in approval of such acts by the seal of the Court and same cannot be countenanced. 36. In the light of aforestated discussion, this Court is of the considered view that in the instant case it is a fit case where exemplary cost are to be levied on petitioner as otherwise it would amount to granting premium to such litigants and allowing them to go scot free. This also gets fortified by the fact, which requires to be noticed at the cost of repetition, that very same petitioners had also filed similar petitions before the Court of Chief Judge, Small Cause Court, Bangalore in Misc.Nos.259/2016 and 260/2016 virtually making identical allegations even against the previous Presiding Officer. This Court has already held herein supra that contentions raised by the petitioners is bereft of truth and if such pleas are to be entertained, it would undermine the confidence of the litigant public in the judicial system and would also impair the judicial dispensation machinery, resulting in judicial officers working under umbrella of fear. This Court has already held herein supra that contentions raised by the petitioners is bereft of truth and if such pleas are to be entertained, it would undermine the confidence of the litigant public in the judicial system and would also impair the judicial dispensation machinery, resulting in judicial officers working under umbrella of fear. As such, this Court is of the considered view that Point No.2 has to be answered by directing petitioners herein to pay exemplary costs. 37. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER Civil Petition Nos.291/2017 and 292/2017 are hereby dismissed with costs. In each of the petitions, petitioners herein are directed to pay Rs.50,000/each to the respondent within three weeks from today, failing which, the registry of this Court shall issue separate certificates to the respondent in each petition to enable him to initiate execution proceedings for recovering costs awarded.