1972 PLP 389 (SCMR)

HAMOUDUR RAHMAN, C. J.‑This is a petition for slir6ai leave to appeal from an order of a learned Single Judge of tire Lahore High Court refusing to interfere in revision with an order of the Courts below rejecting an application for interim injunction. The circumstances leading up to the application for interim injunction may briefly be stated as follows :‑-- The petitioner's husband, Abdur Rahim, carried on business it', partnership with the respondent Abdul Aziz. The latter filed a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts. During the pendency of the suit, he also applied under Order XXXVIII, rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure for attach ment before judgment of the property in dispute, but on the 28th of October 1967, the respondent Abdur Rahim gave an under taking by affidavit that he would not during the pendency of the suit dispose of the property to anybody. The application for tit attachment before judgment was disposed of on this undertaking. Thereafter, on the 18th of January 1971, the suit was decreed against the respondent Abdur Rahim for a sum of Rs. 2,18,600, A few days before the decree, namely, on the 1st of January 1971, the said Abdur Rahim, however, in breach of his undertaking, transferred the property in favour of his wife, ostensibly for a consideration of Rs.20,000, made up partly of the dower claim and partly on an alleged advance of Rs. 10,000 from the wife. The decree‑holder, in execution of his decree, attached the property on the 13th March 1971. It was at this stage that the present petitioner, who is the wife of the said Abdur Rahim, came into the picture to file an objection to the execution. The objection was dismissed on the 10th of June 1971. Within four days thereafter she filed a suit under Order XXI, rule 63 of the Code of Civil Procedure and applied for a temporary injunction for restraining the respondent Abdul Aziz from selling the property. The injunction was refused by the trial Court and this order was upheld by the District Judge in appeal on the 25th of September 1971. She came in revision (No. 815 of 1971) to the High Court, but that too was dismissed on the 6th of October 1971. The property was then put up to auction and was purchased by the respondent Abdul Aziz on the 11th of October 1971. The present petitioner, again, applied for restraining the decree‑holder‑auction‑purchaser from ejecting her from the premises. This was dismissed by the trial Court and the order has been upheld in appeal by the District Judge and in revision by the High Court. She now seeks special leave to appeal, and it is contended on her behalf, firstly, that the learned judge who dealt with this revision application was not competent to do so, because, the earlier Revision No. 815 of 1971 against the appellate order of the District Judge upholding the rejection of the prayer of her ad interim injunction had been heard by another learned Judge of the High Court. There is no substance at all in this contention. Each Judge of the High Court is competent to deal with any matter which comes before him, particularly where the matter is of a different nature and does not arise out of the same proceedings. In the present case, Revision No. 815 of 1971, which had been disposed of by another learned Judge, was in respect of an entirely different matter. Civil Revision No. 107 of 1972 arose out of a different proceeding and, therefore, another learned Judge of the High Court could competently deal with it. The second contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that she is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice and, therefore, her rights cannot be impaired, by reason of the pro visions of subsection (1) of section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. This question has yet to be decided in the suit filed by her under Order XXI, rule 63 of the Code of Civil Procedure. We do not, therefore, propose to express any opinion on this question or to prejudge this issue at this stage. If she succeeds in her suit, the property will be restored to her. No other point has been urged in support of this petition, and since we find no substance in either of these points, this petition is dismissed. Leave refused.