MLD 1994

1994 PLP 1153 (MLD)

Mian ABDUL QADOOS — Petitioner Versus FAQIRULLAH MINHAS and others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
N/A
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1994 PLP 1153 (MLD)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members N/A
Parties Mian ABDUL QADOOS — Petitioner Versus FAQIRULLAH MINHAS and others — Respondents
Primary Law Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1153 (MLD)?

This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 1153 (MLD)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1153 (MLD) (Mian ABDUL QADOOS — Petitioner Versus FAQIRULLAH MINHAS and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Representation

  • Kh. Saeed-uz-Zafar for Petitioner.
  • Nemo for Respondents Nos.1 and 2.
  • Mian Hamid-ud-Din Kasuri for Respondent No.3.

Headnotes / Summary

S.24

Transfer of case

On filing application for transfer of case pending in Court District Judge called for comments of Trial Court concerned which denied allegation made against it in application, but stated that in view of the fact that both parties did not appear to have confidence and faith in Court, it had no objection if case was transferred to any other Court

Petitioner having failed to establish grounds on basis of which case was sought to be transferred, case could not be transferred merely because Court concerned had expressed view that it had no objection if the case was transferred to another Court as it would amount to expression of no confidence in Court concerned.

Judgment & Decree

In this revision petition, the legality of order, dated 15-6-1993 passed by learned District Judge, Sheikhupura through which application made by the petitioner under section 24 of the C.P.C. seeking transfer of a civil case pending in the Court of Mr. Muhammad Siddique Tabassam, Civil Judge, Sheikhupura has been rejected.

2. The respondent No.3 made an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. before Mr. Muhammad Siddique Tabassam, Civil Judge, Sheikhupura which is pending disposal in the said Court. The petitioner made an application under section 24, C.P.C. in which it was prayed that the said case should be transferred from the said Court to any other Court at Sheikhupura. The grounds urged in the said application were that the respondent No.3 had been declaring that she had made various complaints in the High Court against the said learned Civil Judge therefore, he would not be in a position to decide the case against her. It was also stated that Abdul Hamid Mir respondent herein was blackmailing the said Court on account of which the learned Civil Judge was being influenced and would not be in a position to do justice about which the learned Civil Judge had also been saying that he would decide the case against the present petitioner as such he did not expect justice from the said learned Civil Judge.

3. The learned District Judge called for the comments of the learned Civil Judge in which he denied the allegations made in the said application. However, he stated that in view of the fact that both the parties did not appear to have confidence and faith in him he had no objection if the case was transferred to any other Court.

4. The learned District Judge in his discretion after satisfying himself that no ground had been made out for transfer of the case rejected the application through the impugned order dated 15-6-1993.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to persuade me that it is a fit case for interference under section 115, C.P.C. as the learned District Judge, Sheikhupura has not been shown to have committed any material irregularity and illegality in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction vested in it under the law.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this revision petition may be considered as an application directly made before this Court under section 24 of the C.P.C. therefore, the case may be transferred from the Civil Court at Sheikhupura to any other Civil Court at Lahore.

7. I have given serious consideration to this prayer. The grounds urged in this revision petition for the transfer of the case are similar to those which have already discussed above. Merely because the learned Civil Judge expressed the view that he had no objection if the case was transferred from his Court, would not be a ground to transfer the case, which would amount to expression of no confidence in the learned Civil Judge on the mere assertions of the parties.

8. No ground has been made out for transfer of the case from Sheikhupura to Lahore either.

9. For the foregoing reasons, the revision petition has no force which is accordingly dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. H.B.T./A-565/L ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.