2010 GBLR 377 (PLP)
AMIR SHAH — Petitioner Versus Mst. KHOSH JOOR — Respondent
| Citation | 2010 GBLR 377 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Appellate Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, C. J., Syed Jaffar Shah and Muhammad Yaqoob, JJ |
| Parties | AMIR SHAH — Petitioner Versus Mst. KHOSH JOOR — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 GBLR 377 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 GBLR 377 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Appellate Court bench comprising: Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, C. J., Syed Jaffar Shah and Muhammad Yaqoob, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 GBLR 377 (PLP) (AMIR SHAH — Petitioner Versus Mst. KHOSH JOOR — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Johar Ali for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 24
Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Art.60(13)
Valid ground
Petitioner had assailed the order whereby application filed by the petitioner for transfer of civil suit from one court to another was dismissed by the Chief Court
Grounds urged for transfer of case were that respondent in the case using filthy language, misbehaved with him in open court, but Civil Judge did not take any notice of the conduct of respondent in the court; that attitude of the Presiding Officer of silent spectator not only encouraged the respondent, but also disgraced the Court; that petitioner had lost confidence in the independence of the Trial Judge in circumstances and that after dismissal of the transfer application, by the Chief Court, Trial Judge had developed bias against the petitioner and issued non-bailable warrants of his arrest for his absence
Petitioner had alleged that act of the Presiding Officer had seriously reflected upon his independence and fair treatment
Held, that it was correct that a reasonable apprehension in the mind of a litigant about the unfairness or bias of the Presiding Officer of the court was considered a valid ground for transfer of the case, but mere apprehension was not sufficient to doubt the independence of the Presiding Officer of the court
Misbehaviour of a party in the court could render such party liable to be proceeded against for appropriate action in accordance with law, but could not be a good or valid ground for transfer of case from one court to another court
Such was not an ordinary practice in civil proceedings 'to issue bailable or non-bailable warrants to secure the attendance of a person, unless there was legal compulsion to use the coercive measures for the attendance of a person
Nothing was on record to show that as to for what reason non-bailable warrants of the petitioner were issued
Ground related to the period subsequent to the dismissal of transfer application of the petitioner by the Chief Court, was such that no comments could be offered without examination of the record
Supreme Appellate Court disposed of the petition with observation that petitioner, may if so advised, approach the Chief Court afresh.
Judgment & Decree
This petition has been directed against the order dated 19-5-2010 whereby the application filed by the petitioner for transfer of Civil suit pending in court of Civil Judge Punial/Ashkoman to another court of competent jurisdiction, has been dismissed. The sole ground urged in the application for transfer of case was that Mst. Khush Joor respondent in the suit using filthy language/misbehaved with the petitioner in the open court but the learned Civil Judge did not take any notice of the conduct of respondent in the court and the attitude of the presiding office of silent spectator not only encouraged the respondent but also disgraced the court, therefore the petitioner has lost confidence in the independence of learned trial judge. The additional ground taken by the petitioner before us in support of this petition is that after dismissal of the transfer application by the Chief Court, learned Trial Judge having developed bias against the petitioner issued his non bailable warrants of arrest on a date, for his absence and this act of the Presiding Officer has seriously reflected upon his independence and fair treatment. This is correct that reasonable apprehension in the mind of a litigant about the unfairness or bias of the presiding officer of the court is considered a valid ground for transfer of case, but mere apprehension is not sufficient to doubt the independence of the presiding officer of the court. The misbehaviour of a party in the court may render such party liable to be proceeded against for appropriate action in accordance with law but it may not be a good or a valid ground for transfer of case from one court to another court. This is not ordinary practice in Civil Proceeding to issue bailable or non-bailable warrants to secure the attendance of a person unless there is legal compulsion to use the coercive measures for the attendance of a person, However there is nothing on record to show that for what reason non-bailable warrants of the petitioner were issued, and further this second ground relates to the period subsequent to the dismissal of transfer application of the petitioner by the Chief Court, on which no comments can be offered without examination of record. This petition is therefore disposed of with the observation that petitioner may if so advised approach the Chief Court afresh. Disposed off. H.B.T./36/Glt Order accordingly.