1984 PLP 906 (CLC)

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑ S. 24‑Civil suit, transfer of‑Suit against petitioner, a resident of J, filed by respondent a Magistrate at V, sought to be transferred on grounds (i) respondent Magistrate, in order to influence petitioner to delete his name from array of defendants in a suit filed by petitioner for declaration and return of stolen property lying in custody of respondent, got suit filed at V ; (ii) person filling suit not known to petitioner ; (iii) petitioner never went to V all his life and question of his having taken Rs.20,000 on loan from respondent not arising ; (iv) suit apparently is false and frivolous intended to harass petitioner ; (v) value of suit intentionally kept by respondent at a figure lower than Rs.25,000 to avoid court‑fee and to cause harassment to peti tioner without monetary involvement‑Transfer of suit ordered in circumstances. ORDER This petition under section 24, C.P.C. seeks the transfer of a suit titled "Abdul Khaliq v. Muhammad Ashraf" from the Court of Civil Judge, Vehari to some Court of competent jurisdiction at Faisalabad.

2. The facts necessary for the purposes of this petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioner who is resident of Jaranwala, District Faisalabad got a case registered, vide F.I.R. No. 536, dated 19th November, 1978 under sections 380/457, P.P.C. with Police Station Jaranwala for some alleged theft in his goldsmith shop situate in Kutchery Bazar, Jaranwala. The stolen property was initially given on Superdari to the petitioner, but, later on, the Superdari was cancelled and the property was taken into custody by the learned Magistrate, Jaranwala seized of the matter. The accused in the case were acquitted but they did not claim the case property whereupon the petitioner applied for return of the case property to him. The same was, however, not returned to him despite the petitioner having made efforts to retrieve the same through the intervention of the Deputy Commissioner, Faisalabad. Ultimately, on 9th February, 1982 the petitioner instituted a suit for a declaration against the Province of Punjab and Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Nauria, Magistrate First Class (now posted at Mianwali) who had taken into custody the property afore‑mentioned when the Superdari from the name of the petitioner was cancelled. It has been asserted that said Magistrate tried to influence the petitioner to delete his name from the array of defendants in the suit filed by him as afore‑mentioned but the petitioner did not yield to this demand. It has been further alleged that the said Magistrate in order to exert undue influence and pressure on him and to harass him so as to coerce him to yield to the demand got the present suit and some other suits instituted against the petitioner at Bhakkar and Vehari. The suit sought to be transferred through this petition, it is submitted, is one of these cases filed through a person not even known to the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has never gone to Vehari all his life and the question of his having take Rs.20,000 on loan from the respondent could never arise. The learned counsel further contends that the suit of the respondent as is apparent from the contents of the plaint itself is false and frivolous on the face of it and is only intended to harass the petitioner. He submitted that there is no mention even in the plaint as to the presence of any person before whom the alleged loan was given to the petitioner. The last contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the value of the suit has been intentionally kept at a figure lower than Rs.25,000 to avoid payment of court‑fees and thus cause harassment to the petitioner without monetary involvement of the respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent only submitted that this suit has been filed by an independent person who was not persuaded to file the suit by the Magistrate as alleged by the petitioner. He could, however, not controvert the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the latter had never gone to Vehari.

5. Having given consideration to the controversy involved especially the date of institution of the suit sought to be transferred through this peti tion and the suit which is the subject‑matter of the connected petition T. A. No. 162/C‑82 I am inclined to agree with the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. This shall however cause no prejudice to the case of any of the parties.

6. In view of the foregoing accepting this petition I direct that the suit for recovery of Rs. 20,000 titled "Abdul Khalig v. Muhammad Ashraf pending in the Court of Mr. Tahir Pervaiz, Civil Judge, Vehari be withdrawn from that Court and entrusted to some Court of competent jurisdiction at Faisalabad for adjudication in accordance with law. The learned District Judge, Faisalabad shall entrust this case to some Civil Judge at Faisalabad. There will, however, be no order as to costs. The parties have been directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Faisalabad, on 7th March, 1983. The Court at Vehari from which the suit has been withdrawn shall ensure that the record of the case reaches the .Court of the learned District Judge, by 3rd March, 1983. M.Y.M. Application allowed.