2009 PLP 950 (YLR)
SAEEDA BEGUM and 7 others — Petitioners Versus DISTRICT OFFICER (REVENUE) JHELUM and 11 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2009 PLP 950 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Syed Hamid Ali Shah, J |
| Parties | SAEEDA BEGUM and 7 others — Petitioners Versus DISTRICT OFFICER (REVENUE) JHELUM and 11 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 950 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PLP 950 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Syed Hamid Ali Shah, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 950 (YLR) (SAEEDA BEGUM and 7 others — Petitioners Versus DISTRICT OFFICER (REVENUE) JHELUM and 11 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Abdul Ghafoor for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 24
Transfer of the case was sought on the ground that court in which case was pending, had disclosed its mind while deciding application for secondary evidence; that petitioner had seen the respondent in the company of his counsel, visiting Judge in his chamber and that conduct of the court was prejudicial to the petitioner
Court, while passing impugned order had observed that order of dismissal of application for permission to adduce additional evidence could be assailed in higher forum which was hardly a ground for transfer of the case
Judge, who had expressed his opinion, was not a good ground for the transfer of the case from his court
Passing of adverse order against the party by a Judge would give no valid cause for the transfer of the case
Court had rightly found that without specific mention of date and time of the alleged visit of counsel and the party to the chamber of the. Judge, it was hardly a ground for transfer of case, especially when said allegations were rebutted in a counter-affidavit. Eastern Federal Union Insurance Company Limited v. Central Board of Revenue, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad through Member Taxation and another 1982 CLC 2316; Aminuddin and 4 others v. Salima Bano 1996 CLC 1361 and Azad Government and others v. Genuine Rights Commission and others 1999 MLD 160 rel.
Judgment & Decree
SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J.
The petitioners moved an application for the transfer of case pending in the Court of Mr. Ahmad Iqbal Mian, Civil Judge, Jhelum, which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, vide order dated 18-6-2008, impugned herein.
2. It is contended by learned counsel that learned Court has disclosed its mind while deciding application for secondary evidence. It was also contended that the petitioner has seen the respondent (Jibrael) in the company of his counsel, visiting learned Judge in his chamber. It was lastly contended that conduct of learned Court is prejudicial to the petitioner.
3. Learned Sessions Judge, while passing the impugned order has observed that order- of dismissal of application for permission to adduce additional evidence, can be assailed in higher forum and is hardly a ground for transfer of the case. The learned Judge who has expressed his opinion has been held not a good ground for the transfer of the case. Reference in this regard can be made to the cases of Eastern Federal Union Insurance Company Limited v. Central Board of Revenue, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad through Member Taxation and another 1982 CLC 2316 and Aminuddin and 4 others v. Salima Bano (1996 CLC 1361). Similarly, it has been had the case of Azad Government and others v. Genuine Rights Commission and others (1999 MLD 160) that a Judge who has passed an adverse order against the party, gives no valid cause for the transfer of the case.
4. It has rightly been held by learned court without specific mention of date and time of the visit of counsel and the party to the chamber of learned Judge is hardly a ground for transfer of the case. Moreso, when these allegations are rebutted in a counter-affidavit.
5. For the foregoing, this petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. H.B.T./S-15/L Petition dismissed.