CLC 1991

1991 PLP 1440 (CLC)

Mst. FAHMIDA PARVEEN and another‑‑‑Applicants Versus GHULAM HUSSAIN and others‑‑‑Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Transfer Application No.772‑C of 1990. decided on 23rd April, 1991.
Honorable Judges
Raja Afrasiab Khan, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1991 PLP 1440 (CLC)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Raja Afrasiab Khan, J
Parties Mst. FAHMIDA PARVEEN and another‑‑‑Applicants Versus GHULAM HUSSAIN and others‑‑‑Respondents
Primary Law Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1440 (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 1991 PLP 1440 (CLC)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Raja Afrasiab Khan, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1440 (CLC) (Mst. FAHMIDA PARVEEN and another‑‑‑Applicants Versus GHULAM HUSSAIN and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑

Headnotes / Summary

‑‑‑‑S.24‑‑‑Transfer of suit‑‑‑Suit for declaration and permanent injunction earlier filed by petitioners against respondent was pending adjudication before Court at place `G'‑‑‑Petitioners subsequently filed another case against respondent in Court at place L'‑‑‑Petitioners applied for transfer of case pending at place `G' to place L'‑‑‑Application of petitioners remained uncontested as respondent did not appear and was proceeded ex parte‑‑‑Suit was ordered to be transferred accordingly so that both suits should be tried together by one and same Court. Syed Aftab Sherazi for Applicant.

Judgment & Decree

GHULAM HUSSAIN and others‑‑‑Respondents Transfer Application No.772‑C of 1990. decided on 23rd April, 1991. ‑‑‑‑S.24‑‑‑Transfer of suit‑‑‑Suit for declaration and permanent injunction earlier filed by petitioners against respondent was pending adjudication before Court at place `G'‑‑‑Petitioners subsequently filed another case against respondent in Court at place L'‑‑‑Petitioners applied for transfer of case pending at place `G' to place L'‑‑‑Application of petitioners remained uncontested as respondent did not appear and was proceeded ex parte‑‑‑Suit was ordered to be transferred accordingly so that both suits should be tried together by one and same Court. Syed Aftab Sherazi for Applicant. Petitioners Mst. Fahmaeda Parveen and Saeeda Parveen instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against Ghulam Hussain respondent before the learned Civil Judge Gujranwala on 24‑9‑1990. This suit is still pending adjudication before the said Court. Another suit was filed by the present petitioners against the respondent in the Court of Mr. Mahroof Ahmad Ali, Civil judge, Lahore. The prayer made by the petitioners in this petition is that the suit filed by them at Gujranwala may be withdrawn for its entrustment to the learned Civil Court at Lahore for its trial alongwith suit pending before the said Court. Notice was sent to the respondent for his appearance before this Court. He did not turn up. Notice issued to the respondent was published in the Daily Nawa‑i‑Waqt on 5‑4‑1991. Despite the publication of the notice, respondent did not appear before this Court. He is accordingly proceeded ex parte. Suit of the petitioners is pending against the respondent before learned Civil Judge at Gujranwala. Similarly another suit between the parties is pending adjudication before learned Civil Judge at Lahore. In the circumstances it would be appropriate if both the suits are consolidated at Lahore for their trial together. Even otherwise it appears that respondent is not interested to contest these proceedings. In the circumstances the suit pending before learned Civil Judge Gujranwala may be withdrawn from his file and shall up entrusted to the learned Civil Judge at Lahore where the subsequent suit of the petitioners is pending, for their trial together. The petition accordingly succeeds and is allowed with no order at to costs. H.B.T./F‑259/L Petition accepted.