2005 PLP 944 (SCMR)
SHAFIQUE-UR-REHMAN — Petitioner Versus H.M. KHALID — Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 944 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Tanvir Ahmed Khan and Falak Sher, JJ |
| Parties | SHAFIQUE-UR-REHMAN — Petitioner Versus H.M. KHALID — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 944 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 944 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Tanvir Ahmed Khan and Falak Sher, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 944 (SCMR) (SHAFIQUE-UR-REHMAN — Petitioner Versus H.M. KHALID — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Ashraf, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 22nd December, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 14-10-2003 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in T.A. No.398/C of 2003).
Ss. 16 & 24
Transfer of suit by High Court from District "S" to District "G"
Contract giving rise to filing suit in District "S" was executed in District "G", where cheque was paid and non-judicial stamp paper was purchased
Cause of action prima facie and tentatively appeared to have arisen in District "G"
Impugned order did not suffer from any illegality or irregularity
Supreme Court dismissed petition and refused leave to appeal.
Judgment & Decree
TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.
Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 14-10-2003, whereby the learned Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court, has transferred the suit filed by the petitioner to the Court of a learned Civil Judge, Gujranwala where respondent's suit for the recovery of damages is pending adjudication.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner for sometime and have gone through the impugned judgment appended with this petition. It is reflected from the perusal thereof that the contract out of which the present proceedings have emanated was executed at Kamoke District Gujranwala and the cheque was also paid over there. The assertion by the petitioner that the agreement was written at Sahiwal, was not substantiated before the learned Judge. It would be appropriate to reproduce the determination of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, where he was respondent, those are as under:
"Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that agreement was written at Sahiwal and Civil Court at Sahiwal had the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter. He however was unable to give any proof of the fact that the contract was arrived at Sahiwal. Non-judicial stamp paper appears to have been purchased from Kamoke, District Gujranwala which supports the contention of the petitioner. As the cause of action, prima facie and tentatively speaking, has arisen at Kamoke District Gujranwala, I am inclined to allow the petition."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference. For what has been stated above, the instant petition being devoid of any force is hereby dismissed. Leave to appeal is declined. S.A.K./S-26/S Leave refused.