2013 PLP 70 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD YASEEN — Petitioner Versus ABID HUSSAIN and 29 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2013 PLP 70 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YASEEN — Petitioner Versus ABID HUSSAIN and 29 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2013 PLP 70 (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 2013 PLP 70 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2013 PLP 70 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD YASEEN — Petitioner Versus ABID HUSSAIN and 29 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ishfaq Qayyum Cheema for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 24
Transfer of execution petition
Petitioner's application for transfer was dismissed by District Judge
No valid ground had been shown to the High Court to have another view in the matter than the one expressed by the District Judge
No case for interference having been made out, revision was dismissed with the direction that the objection petition of the petitioner, if possible, may be decided first and expeditiously by the Trial Court. Muhammad Saeed Sheikh for Applicants.
Judgment & Decree
C.M. No.1533-C of 2010 CH. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN, J.
The learned counsel for the applicants has stated that he does not press this application as the main civil revision petition has been fixed for today.
2. Dismissed as not pressed. MAIN CIVIL REVISION PETITION.
3. Muhammad Yaseen petitioner has brought the instant civil revision petition against order dated 2-4-2010, recorded by the learned District Judge, Lahore, whereby he has dismissed an application brought by the petitioner for transfer of the execution petition titled "Abid Hussain etc. v. Mansaf Ali etc." from the Court of Mr. Sajid Mahmood Sheikh, learned Civil Judge, Lahore to some other court.
4. Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of the instant petition are that the said execution petition is pending in the afore-mentioned learned court. The petitioner brought an application for transfer of the same there from to some other court. The same was declined vide the impugned order.
5. The petitioner feeling himself aggrieved of the same has brought the instant civil revision petition. His learned counsel during the course of his submissions has requested to direct the learned executing court first to decide the objection petition brought by the petitioner at the earliest.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents to the petition has submitted that the reasons assigned by the learned District Judge in declining the petition for transfer of the execution petition from the present court to some other court are valid. He, however, has shown no objection on the issuance of direction to the learned executing court for expeditious disposal of the execution petition.
7. I have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties. The copies of the record annexed to the petition gone into.
8. I find that the learned District Judge has assigned reasons in declining the request of the petitioner for transfer of the execution petition to some other court. No valid ground has been shown to have another view than the one expressed by the learned District Judge in the matter. It rather, has been submitted by the side of the petitioner that he may be satisfied in case of direction to the learned executing court to first decide his objection petition and that may be at the earliest.
9. In view of this position, I find that there is no case for interference with the impugned order. The revision petition, therefore, is dismissed. However, the learned executing court is directed to see the possibility of first deciding the objection petition of the petitioner and if it may be so, then it must be very expeditiously. C.M. No.2 of 2010
10. As the main petition has been dismissed by this court today, therefore, this miscellaneous petition has lost its relevance. Dismissed as having gone infructuous. KMZ/M-176/L Revision dismissed.