1988 PLP 749 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD RAFI and others‑‑applicants Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 749 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Afrasiab Khan, I |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAFI and others‑‑applicants Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 749 (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 1988 PLP 749 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Afrasiab Khan, I.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 749 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD RAFI and others‑‑applicants Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Noor Mohammad Awan for Respondents.
- Date of hearing; 13th December,1987.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 24‑‑Transfer of suit‑‑Application for‑‑Applicant failed to bring on record anything to prove that Court was biased towards him and consequently would not be able to do justice between parties‑‑In absence of any material to prove averments in application there could be no justification to interfere in such a matter‑‑Transfer application being devoid of merit was dismissed in circumstances. A. Karim Malik for Applicants.
Judgment & Decree
A. Karim Malik for Applicants. Malik Noor Mohammad Awan for Respondents. Date of hearing; 13th December,1987. The petitioners have moved this Constitutional petition praying therein that the suit pending in the Court of Mr. Javed Iqbal Saif, learned Civil Judge, Chunian, may be transferred to any other Court of competent jurisdiction for trial.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a transfer petition was moved by the petitioners saying that respondents Nos.3 and 4 have openly declared that they have approached the learned Civil Judge and that the suit shall be decreed in their favour. It was stated that the conduct and behaviour of the learned trial Court appeared to be favourable to the plaintiff‑respondents. The learned District Judge, Kasur, vide his order dated 7‑9‑1987, dismissed the application of the petitioners holding that there is no need to transfer the case at this stage to some other Court.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and have perused the record very minutely. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out as to how the learned trial Court shall not be able to do complete justice between the parties. There is nothing on the record to show that the learned trial Court is biased towards the petitioners. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that this is a method adopted by the petitioners to prolong the litigation without any legal justification. He has submitted that twice in the earlier litigation, direction was issued by the High Court for expeditious disposal of the case, and despite that there was no progress made in the case on account of the delaying tactics adopted by the present petitioners.
4. The upshot of the above discussion is that I do not find any legal justification to interfere in the matter. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed being devoid of any force. The parties are left to bear their own costs. H . B . T . / M‑503/ L Petition dismissed.