2023 PLP 888 (MLD)
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER THERMAL POWER STATION GENCO and 8 others — Applicants Versus ASSADULLAH and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2023 PLP 888 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER THERMAL POWER STATION GENCO and 8 others — Applicants Versus ASSADULLAH and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2023 PLP 888 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2023 PLP 888 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2023 PLP 888 (MLD) (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER THERMAL POWER STATION GENCO and 8 others — Applicants Versus ASSADULLAH and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----S. 24---Transfer of civil suit---Scope---Applicants assailed order passed by District Judge whereby the case before Trial Court was transferred from one district to another---District Judge, in the impugned order, had observed that the grounds taken by the respondent were neither plausible nor trustworthy and that no cogent reason was shown for transfer of the case, but since it came on surface that brother of respondent, an advocate, had previously moved an application against Presiding Officer of the Trial Court with regard to some other matter, therefore, in the interest of justice the case was transferred---Observations of the District Judge seemed to be reasonable and justified, but since Presiding Officer of the Trial Court had been transferred and the Court had original jurisdiction to try the case, therefore, it was appropriate that the case be assigned to the same Court---Impugned order was set aside---Transfer application was disposed of accordingly.
- ----S. 24---Transfer of civil suit---Scope---Applicants sought transfer of case from one district to another---Contention of applicants was that they had great apprehension that the brother of respondent, who was an advocate, might use the Bar platform and that none of the advocates in the district was ready to be counsel for the applicants---Validity---Ground agitated by the applicants was misconceived as they were represented through the Deputy District Attorney before the Trial Court and through a private lawyer before the High Court---Application in respect of the transfer of case to another district was dismissed.
- Nasrullah Solangi for Respondent No. 1.
- Munawar Ali Abbasi, Assistant A.G. for Respondent No. 2.
- Abdul Rasheed Abro, Assistant Attorney General for Respondent No. 3.
- 3. Learned counsel for the applicants mainly contended that learned District Judge while ordering withdrawal of the first class suit has not passed a speaking or plausible order, nor he applied his judicious mind properly; that learned District Judge did not consider the fact that brother of the respondent No.1 was not counsel in the main leading suit; that respondent No.1 wanted to linger-on the matter and that the brother of respondent No.1 is practicing Advocate of District Kashmore @ Kandhkot, therefore, the applicants have a great apprehension that his brother may use the Bar platform. Moreover, for transfer of suit to some other district the learned counsel has empathized on the ground that no any advocate from Kandhkot and or Kashmore town is ready to be counsel for the applicants. Though the learned counsel has not taken this ground in his application yet he vehemently pressed on this ground. In support of this ground he has relied upon 1983 CLC page 3181.
- 4. On other hand counsel for respondent No.1 argued that impugned order passed by learned District Judge, Kashmore @ Kandhkot is well reasoned and speaking order, which does not call for any interference by this Court. He however further added that presently the Presiding Officer of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kashmore, has been transferred therefore; he would have no objection if the case is again transferred to same Court, which has original jurisdiction to try the case.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 24
Scope
Applicants assailed order passed by District Judge whereby the case before Trial Court was transferred from one district to another
District Judge, in the impugned order, had observed that the grounds taken by the respondent were neither plausible nor trustworthy and that no cogent reason was shown for transfer of the case, but since it came on surface that brother of respondent, an advocate, had previously moved an application against Presiding Officer of the Trial Court with regard to some other matter, therefore, in the interest of justice the case was transferred
Observations of the District Judge seemed to be reasonable and justified, but since Presiding Officer of the Trial Court had been transferred and the Court had original jurisdiction to try the case, therefore, it was appropriate that the case be assigned to the same Court
Impugned order was set aside
Transfer application was disposed of accordingly.
S. 24
Scope
Applicants sought transfer of case from one district to another
Contention of applicants was that they had great apprehension that the brother of respondent, who was an advocate, might use the Bar platform and that none of the advocates in the district was ready to be counsel for the applicants
Ground agitated by the applicants was misconceived as they were represented through the Deputy District Attorney before the Trial Court and through a private lawyer before the High Court
Application in respect of the transfer of case to another district was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
ZULFIQAR ALI SANGI, J.
Through the instant application, the applicants have prayed for setting aside the Order dated 29.9.2020 passed by learned District Judge, Kashmore @ Kandhkot in Transfer Application No.07 of 2020 filed by applicant/respondent No.1, whereby he withdrawn F.C. Suit No.97 of 2020 re; Assadullah v. Chairman WAPDA and others from the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Kashmore and transferred it to learned Senior Civil Judge Kandhkot. The applicants have further prayed for transfer of above first class suit to any other Court of competent jurisdiction in some other district.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1 (Assadullah Solangi) filed the aforesaid suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents/applicants in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kashmore. The respondents/applicants filed their written statement along with an application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. which was allowed and suit of the respondent No.1/plaintiff was rejected vide order dated 15.6.2020. However, in appeal filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff the order dated 15.6.2020 was set-aside and ultimately the suit was pending adjudication before learned trial Court i.e. Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kashmore. Meanwhile, respondent No.1/plaintiff filed an application before learned District Judge, Kashmore @ Kandhkot seeking transfer of first class suit and the learned District Judge after hearing the parties allowed the said transfer application.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants mainly contended that learned District Judge while ordering withdrawal of the first class suit has not passed a speaking or plausible order, nor he applied his judicious mind properly; that learned District Judge did not consider the fact that brother of the respondent No.1 was not counsel in the main leading suit; that respondent No.1 wanted to linger-on the matter and that the brother of respondent No.1 is practicing Advocate of District Kashmore @ Kandhkot, therefore, the applicants have a great apprehension that his brother may use the Bar platform. Moreover, for transfer of suit to some other district the learned counsel has empathized on the ground that no any advocate from Kandhkot and or Kashmore town is ready to be counsel for the applicants. Though the learned counsel has not taken this ground in his application yet he vehemently pressed on this ground. In support of this ground he has relied upon 1983 CLC page 3181.
4. On other hand counsel for respondent No.1 argued that impugned order passed by learned District Judge, Kashmore @ Kandhkot is well reasoned and speaking order, which does not call for any interference by this Court. He however further added that presently the Presiding Officer of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kashmore, has been transferred therefore; he would have no objection if the case is again transferred to same Court, which has original jurisdiction to try the case.
5. Learned Assistant A.G. as well as learned Assistant Attorney General supported the impugned order.
6. Perusal of impugned order reflects that learned District Judge while passing impugned order has observed that grounds taken by the respondent No.1 for transfer of the suit were neither plausible nor trustworthy and that no any other cogent reason was shown for transfer of the case, but since it came on surface that brother of respondent No.1 had previously moved an application against learned Presiding Officer of trial Court with regard to some other matter, therefore, in the interest of justice and being safe side the case was transferred. The observations of the learned District Judge seem to be reasonable and justified.
7. The case was transferred from the Court of Senior Civil Judge Kashmore to Court of Senior Civil Judge Kandhkot only on the ground that brother of respondent No.1 had previously moved an application against Presiding Officer of trial Court with regard to some other matter, and since presently the Presiding Officer of that Court has been transferred, and that Court has original jurisdiction to try the case, therefore, it would be appropriate that case may be assigned to same Court. Accordingly, impugned order dated 29.9.2020, is hereby set-aside and F.C. Suit No.97 of 2020 re; Assadullah v. Chairman WAPDA and others is withdrawn from the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Kandhkot and transferred to Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Kashmore, for its disposal in accordance with law.
8. The ground agitated by the learned counsel for the applicants in respect of the transfer of the case to another district is misconceived as they were represented through the DDA before the trial court and through a private lawyer before this court, hence this application in respect of the transfer of case to another district is dismissed.
9. This civil transfer application stands disposed of in above terms. SA/C-3/Sindh Order accordingly.