1991 PLP 1663 (CLC)

‑‑‑‑S. 12‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.24‑‑‑Transfer of suit‑‑‑Numerous adjournments to respondents for their evidence was made main ground for transfer of suit‑‑‑Trial Court, although allowed many adjournments for production of respondents' evidence, nevertheless such fact did not at all, reflect any favouritism for respondents, for, Trial Court had also extended same indulgence to petitioners also by adjourning case not less than six times for their evidence‑‑‑Trial Court's comment was that every adjournment which was granted either to respondents or to petitioners was for sufficient reasons which were duly recorded‑‑‑Fact that Trial Court's acceptance of respondents' application for comparison of specimen signatures of a defendants' witness with those of admitted ones had been set aside by High Court in revision, such un-sustainability of judicial order would not per se justify transfer of case‑‑‑Parties having already concluded their evidence and case being ripe for arguments and judicial decision, transfer of same at present stage would not be conducive to its expeditious disposal‑‑‑Application for transfer of suit was dismissed in circumstances. Ch. Muhammad Sadiq for Applicants. Ch. Shahbaz Khurshid for Respondents. The petitioners have filed this petition under section 24, C.P.C. for the transfer of a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell instituted against them by the respondents from the Court of Mr.' Altaf Hussain Mahar, Civil Judge, Chunian.

2. The transfer is sought on the grounds that the trial Court granted numerous adjournments to the respondents for their evidence and at the fag‑end of the trial accepted an application moved by the respondents for obtaining specimen signatures of one Muhammad Ikram Malik, who was examined as D.W.2 for their comparison with: those marked Ex.D.W.2/3 appearing on the reverse of the agreement Ex.P1 which he disowned. According to the petitioners, these circumstances smack of bias of the Presiding Officer against them.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is true that the trial Court allowed many adjournments although short to the respondents for production of their evidence, nevertheless this fact does not at all reflect any favouritism for the respondents as the trial Court extended this indulgence to the petitioners also by adjourning the case not less than six times for their evidence. The trial Court in its comments has submitted that every adjournment which was granted either to the respondents or to the petitioners was for sufficient reasons which were duly recorded. As regards the second ground, it was a judicial order which has been set aside by this Court on a revision petition filed by the petitioners. The un-sustainability of a judicial order per se does not justify the transfer of a case. Moreover, the parties have already concluded their evidence and the case is now ripe for arguments and final decision. The transfer of the suit at this stage would not be conducive to its expeditious disposal as directed by the Supreme Court on 3rd of June, 1990 in C.P.S.LA. No.462/1990.

4. In the above circumstances, I do not feel inclined to transfer the suit and accordingly dismiss this petition. AA./F‑268/L Application dismissed.