P L D 2006 Lahore 309 (PLP)

CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.

The brief facts out of which the present revision petition arises are that respondent filed suit for recovery amounting to Rs.34,50,000 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Islamabad who entrusted the same to Civil Judge 1st Class, Islamabad. The petitioner/defendant filed an application under Order XIV, Rule 2, C.P.C. on the ground that suit filed by the respondent against the petitioner was not maintainable in view of section 69(1) of the Partnership Act, 1932. The application was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 26-5-2004. The petitioner being aggrieved filed this revision and the following order was passed on 7-9-2004: "This petition was fixed on 3-9-2004 and following order was passed: `The petitioner has challenged the vires of order dated 26-5-2004 passed by Civil Judge, Islamabad through this revision petition, therefore, learned counsel of the petitioner is directed to argue the case whether this revision petition is maintainable or not under the law.' Learned counsel of the petitioner has not advanced arguments qua maintainability of revision petition at principal seat in view of High Courts (Establishment) Order (Punjab) Amendment Ordinance and Rules framed thereunder. Therefore, learned counsel of the petitioner is directed to argue the case qua maintainability of the revision petition at principal seat in view of order dated 3-9-2004. Re-list on 16-9-2004."

2. Learned counsel of the petitioner submits that revision petition filed by the petitioner at principal seat is maintainable as Islamabad is not part of civil Division Rawalpindi. In support of his contention he relied upon Waheed Corporation registered v. Capital Development Authority, Islamabad 1998 PTD 3863 and unreported judgment dated 26-2-2002 in F.A.O. No.308 of 1999.

3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the petitioner and perused the record.

4. The question of law has already been settled by this Court in Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif v. Sardar Farooq Ahmad Khan Leghari PLD 1996 Lah.

92. The relevant contention of the learned counsel of the respondent in the said case are as follows: (i) .. (ii) The cases relating to Islamabad are assigned to Rawalpindi Bench and this is the consistent practice since 1981, therefore, no special treatment should be given to the petitioners (iii) .. (iv) .. (v) Entertainment of these petitions at Lahore will be a departure of the Constitution because all citizens of Pakistan are equal before law and they are entitled to the same treatment .. The relevant observations of the Court are as follows:

"A bare perusal of the Rules would show that all matters arising out of the area assigned to a Bench shall be filed before and disposed of by that Bench. Here, admittedly the subject-matter of the suit arises within the area assigned to the Rawalpindi Bench, therefore, in terms of the rule 3 ibid it has to be filed before and disposed of by, the Rawalpindi Bench.... all classes of civil, criminal and constitutional matters arising within the areas assigned to a Bench shall be filed before and disposed of by that Bench." "Let me now deal with the application for entertaining the revision petitions against the interlocutory orders passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Islamabad at the Principal Seat of this Court. I am afraid these revision petitions cannot be directly entertained at the Principal Seat at Lahore, in that, under Rule 5 of the rules, transfer can be sought only when any proceedings are pending at the Principal Seat of the High Court or a Bench to another Bench or the Principal Seat of the High Court. Here, this condition precedent is lacking."

5. The unreported judgment relied by the learned counsel of the petitioner is distinguished on facts and law as the question of entertaining the appeal at Principal Seat was not raised and decided in the said case. The reported case relied by the counsel of the petitioner is also distinguished on facts and law as in that case a constitutional petition was filed by challenging the vires of orders of the public functionaries whereas in the present case the petitioner has challenged the vires of the interim order passed by the trial Court in the suit filed by the respondent and question of law, as mentioned above, has. already been decided in the reported case Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif v. Sardar Farooq Ahmad Khan Leghari PLD 1996 Lah.

92. In view of what has been discussed above, the revision petition be returned to the petitioner to file the same before Rawalpindi Bench. S.A.K./R-10/L Revision returned.