The Talmud suggests a different resolution of the apparent contradiction between the ruling of the mishna and the statement of Rabbi Elazar.

In the previous answer of Rabbi Yohanan, it was stated that the mishna is addressing the situation regarding laymen’s courts. Rav Pappa offers a different resolution: Rav Pappa said: One can understand the mishna even if you say that the mishna is referring to courts of experts, like the courts of Rav Huna and of Rav Hisda, who were both experts and resided in the same city.

The Talmud explains why in that situation the debtor can refuse judgment before a court of experts: As, in that case, the debtor can say to the creditor: Am I imposing on you by requesting that you go for judgment elsewhere? According to Rav Pappa’s response, the debtor may refuse judgment before a court of experts in that city. Although he may not compel the creditor to go to another city, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar that the creditor may force the debtor to appear in the court that convenes in his own city, the debtor may insist on judgment before a different court of experts in that city.