2014 PLP 1267 (MLD)

SHAHID JAMIL KHAN, J.

This revision petition is filed against order dated 3-3-2014 passed by learned District Judge, Attock whereby an application, filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The application was for transfer of case titled "Ghulam Sarwar Khan v. Tariq Khattak" from the Court of Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Gondal, Civil Judge, Fateh Jang.

2. Brief facts are that the petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent on 22-7-2011. Issues were framed on 3-11-2011 and case was fixed for evidence of the petitioner (plaintiff). Instead of producing evidence, the petitioner, moved various miscellaneous applications, which were turned down. Last opportunity was given for production of evidence, when petitioner moved another application for striking off written statement of the defendant, which was also dismissed by the Civil Judge. A final and last opportunity was given to the petitioner/plaintiff to produce evidence and case was fixed for 13-2-2014. The petitioner, on 10-2-2014 (two days before the date for evidence), filed an application for transfer of the above said suit before the learned District Judge, Attock. This application was dismissed vide order dated 3-3-2014, against which the instant petition is filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has lost faith in the trial court as learned trial judge was extending lenient view in favour of the defendant/respondent besides reiterating the factual grounds taken in the petition.

4. The impugned order along with other annexures of the petition are perused in light of the arguments.

5. Learned District Judge called comments from the said Civil Judge on application for transfer by the petitioner, employing due process of law. It was found by him that the petitioner wanted to linger on the matter at the maximum, on one pretext or the other. As the petitioner instead of producing evidence had been filing different appli-cations like objections on commission's report, contempt application etc.

6. No arbitrariness is found in exercise of discretion by the learned District Judge. It may be observed that District Judge is also an administrative head of the lower judiciary, therefore, management of the cases by assignment, is his sole prerogative. Therefore, interference into his functions on flimsy grounds would shatter the confidence of lower judiciary.

7. The apex Court in Attaullah alias Billa and others v. Muhammad Ilyas and others (2004 SCMR 830) has also disapproved exercise of revisional jurisdiction in favour of a litigant who misuses the process of law, relevant part is reproduced with advantage; "

5. It is not deniable that relief under section 115 C.P.C. was a discretionary relief in equity. It is also a principle too well-established that a person who misconduct himself vis-a-vis the proceedings of a Court or the process of law, disentitles himself to any assistance from Courts of law...."

8. For what has been discussed above, the revision petition is dismissed-in-limine. AG/G-23/L Revision dismissed.