1983 PLP 3313 (CLC)
RAHIM BAKHSH AND OTHERS ‑Petitioners Versus PIR BAKHSH Respondent
| Citation | 1983 PLP 3313 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | M. Mehboob Ahmad, J |
| Parties | RAHIM BAKHSH AND OTHERS ‑Petitioners Versus PIR BAKHSH Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 3313 (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 1983 PLP 3313 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: M. Mehboob Ahmad, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 3313 (CLC) (RAHIM BAKHSH AND OTHERS ‑Petitioners Versus PIR BAKHSH Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shahid Hussain Kadri for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑ S. 24‑Transfer of case‑Allegations made against Presiding Officer for making observations causing apprehension in mind of party about his impartiality‑Transfer of case allowed. Respondent in person. Date of bearing: 19th March, 1983.
Judgment & Decree
Respondent in person. Date of bearing: 19th March, 1983. This is a petition under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure for transfer of an appeal titled "Pir Bakhsh v. Rahim Bakhsh" from the Court of Sh. Saeed Ahmad, Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura, to some other Court of competent jurisdiction.
2. This application for transfer of the appeal aforementioned was filed on the ground that the learned Additional District Judge seized of the matter has made observations which have caused a genuine apprehension in the mind of the petitioners that the Court seized of the matter is not impartial towards them.
3. The respondent, who has appeared in person, submits that the petitioners are using dilatory tactics only and have levelled false allegations against the Presiding Officer. He, however, states that he has no objection to the transfer of the case to any other competent Court, but would request that the Court to which the case may be transferred should be directed to dispose of the case expeditiously.
4. The respondent has also filed a reply to the transfer application wherein he has raised the same contentions as have been raised today before me.
5. In view of the foregoing, accepting this petition, I direct that the appeal titled‑"Pir Bakhsh v. Rahim Bakhsh" be withdrawn from the Court of Sh. Saeed Ahmad, Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura, and entrusted B to the learned District Judge, Sheikhupura,: for adjudication in accordance with law. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
6. The parties have been directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Sheikhupura, on 2nd April, 1983, who shall decide the appeal finally by 19th May, 1983 and report compliance of this direction to the Registrar of this Court. M. Y. H. Application allowed.