1985 PLP 1272 (CLC)
GHULAM HUSSAIN and another-Petitioners Versus GHULAM YASEEN and another-Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1272 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | GHULAM HUSSAIN and another-Petitioners Versus GHULAM YASEEN and another-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1272 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 1272 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 1272 (CLC) (GHULAM HUSSAIN and another-Petitioners Versus GHULAM YASEEN and another-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Inayat Ali for Petitioners.
- Ch.Nasser Ahmad for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.6, 24 & 115--High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders, Vol. I, Ch. 13, paras. 2 & 4--Transfer of suit--Suit entertained by Civil Judge beyond his pecuniary jurisdiction--District Judge on move from such Civil Judge, held, competent to transfer suit, to Court of competent jurisdiction. Wasiq Ali Khan v. Muhammad Afzal and another P L D 1984 Lah. 294; Mst. Razia Shafi v. Major M.S. Malik P L D 1971 S C 247 and Ahmad Ali and another v. Muhammad Ashraf etc. 1984 C L C 2667 ref. Data, of hearing: 10th June, 1984.
Judgment & Decree
The facts leading upto this revision in brief are that on 8-9-1981 which was the last date of limitation, Ghulam Yasin and Mst. Karim Khatoon respondents filed suit for possession by pre-emption against Ghulam Hussain and Kaloo petitioners before the Civil Judge IInd Class Khanpur. In para. No. 8 of the plaint it was stated: which was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of Civil Judge IInd Class. Instead of returning the plaint under Order VII, rule 10, C.P.C., the learned Civil Judge, registered the suit and then transmitted the suit file to the learned District Judge, Rahimyar Khan for its transfer to the Court of competent jurisdiction whereon the learned District Judge, vide his order dated 20-9-1981 transferred the case to Civil Judge 1st Class, Liaquatpur Camp Khanpur, hence this petition.
2. Learned counsel submits that since Civil Judge IInd Class was not competent to entertain the suit so he could not have moved the learned District Judge for transfer of case, (ii) that under section 24, C . P. C . , the learned District Judge had no authority to transfer suit pending before the Court of incompetent jurisdiction. Reliance has been placed on Wasiq Ali Khan v. Muhammad Afzal and another P L D 1984 Lah. 294,Mst. Razia Shaft v. Major M.S. Malik P L D 1971 S C 247 and Ahmad Ali and another v. Muhammad Ashraf etc. 1984 C L C 2667, (iii) that the case was transferred without notice to the petitioners. Conversely the learned counsel for the respondents supported the order of the learned District Judge.
3. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. "I am of the view that under High Court Rules and Orders, Vo1.I, Chapter 13(4) which reads as follows:-- "If a subordinate Court sends a case to the District judge with an application for its transfer, on the ground that it is beyond his jurisdiction or on similar grounds, it should give the parties a date of appearance before the District Judge. The 'District Judge will either hear the matter on that day, or, when this is not possible, give another date. If orders for transfer are passed, the parties present should be informed of the Court to which the case has been transferred, and a date should be fixed by the District Judge, for their next appearance in the new Court." The learned District Judge in the circumstances of the case was quite competent to tranasfer the case from the Court of Civil Judge IInd Class. The case-law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners being distinguishable is not helpful to him. As for point at No.3 of the learned counsel. I am of the view that since no summons were issued A to the petitioners in the main suit therefore, the petitioners were not entitled to any notice by the learned District Judge. To my mind the learned District Judge has passed a valid order to which no exception) can be taken. For what has been stated above, the petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. M.Y.H.??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.