1987 PLP 655 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD SHOAIB‑‑Applicant Versus MUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 655 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Asadullah, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHOAIB‑‑Applicant Versus MUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 655 (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 1987 PLP 655 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Asadullah, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 655 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD SHOAIB‑‑Applicant Versus MUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Khalid Hussain for Petitioner.
- M.A. Zafar for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 11th October, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 24‑‑Tranafer of suit‑‑Convenience of parties a consideration for‑ Convenience of parties in transferring case is to be taken into consideration if both parties had agreed in that respect‑‑Suit filed at one place, held, could not be transferred to other place just for Convenience done party‑‑Suit filed by plaintiff at place 'O' on his own option as according to his own plea at time of filing his suit, defendant was not residing at place 'L'‑‑Such suit could not be transferred at place 'L' for convenience of plaintiff in presence of plea of defendant that he was working within place '0' and criminal proceedings against him were also pending at place '0'.
Judgment & Decree
Transfer Application No. 443‑C of 1986, decided on 13th October, 1986. ‑‑‑S. 24‑‑Tranafer of suit‑‑Convenience of parties a consideration for‑ Convenience of parties in transferring case is to be taken into consideration if both parties had agreed in that respect‑‑Suit filed at one place, held, could not be transferred to other place just for Convenience done party‑‑Suit filed by plaintiff at place 'O' on his own option as according to his own plea at time of filing his suit, defendant was not residing at place 'L'‑‑Such suit could not be transferred at place 'L' for convenience of plaintiff in presence of plea of defendant that he was working within place '0' and criminal proceedings against him were also pending at place '0'. M. Khalid Hussain for Petitioner. M.A. Zafar for Respondent. Date of hearing: 11th October, 1986. I have heard the arguments. At the time of filing of the suit the petitioner‑plaintiff had the option to file the suit at Okara or at Lahore but only if the respondent at that time also resided at Lahore. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the respondent at that time was not residing at Lahore and, therefore, the suit at that time would not be filed at Lahore by the petitioner. He has filed this application keeping in view the convenience of the parties as both the parties are now residing at Lahore. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, states that the respondent is working for gain now within the District of Sahiwal and, therefore, it will not be convenient for him to face the case at Lahore. The matter of convenience could be taken into consideration if both the parties had agreed to this aspect A but they have not so agreed. The legal position is that the case in any case could be filed at Okara because criminal prosecution started here and culminated there. Therefore, the suit is very much maintainable at Okara and there is no need for transferring the same just for convenience of one party. The application is dismissed. H.B.T./716/L Application dismissed.