Find a Lawyer

Application No. 11 of 1952, decided on 12th May, 1953 under section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code for transfer of the case.

S. 115‑Order of District Judge transferring case under S. 24, C. P. C.‑Whether or when open to revision.

S. 24‑Order of District Judge transferring case to allay apprehension that party will not have fair hearing‑Cancelled in revision by High. Court.

It is an essential ingredient of the law, in considering an application for transfer, that the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for the petitioner to suppose that he will not receive a fair and impartial trial. Unless such reason able grounds are shown to exist transfer should not be ordered.

In this case order of District Judge transferring case on ground of party's fear that he will not get a fair hearing was cancelled in revision and case re‑transferred to original Court.

Mirza Muhammad Ahmad for Applicant.

Malik Karam Elahi for Respondent.

‑This is an application for transfer under the provisions of section 24, C. P. C. In moving the application for transfer learned counsel for the plaintiff‑applicants seeks also to invoke my powers of revision under the provisions of section 115, C. P. C.

Three applications are before me, all of them relating to different cases, though the grounds on which transfer is sought are identical in each case. This order will, therefore, deal with all the three cases.

The brief facts are that the plaintiff applicants presented applications in the Court of the Sub‑Judge, Quetta, under the Rent Control Regulation for determination of standard rent and the reduction of the rent charged in relation to certain khokhas and a shop which belong to the defendant‑respondent. The defendant respondent then applied under section 24, C. P. C. to the District Judge in Baluchistan for transfer of these cases to some other Court of competent jurisdiction on the grounds that the Sub‑Judge had decided other similar cases in one way and that the points for determination in the present cases were analogous. The second ground was the defendant‑respondent did not anticipate he would receive a fair trial in that Court.

In considering the application, the learned District Judge accepted the application of the defendant‑respondent and directed the transfer of these cases to the Court of the Senior Sub‑Judge in Baluchistan.

In the first place, the powers of this Court and those of the District Judge under the provisions of section 24, C. P. C. are concurrent. It will, therefore, be necessary for me to see whether another application under the same section, which has already been decided by the District Judge, is competent, or whether this is a fit case in which my powers of revision should be exercised.

The general principles governing the transfer of cases are relatively simple, in that, subject to certain considerations an order by a competent Court transferring a case is a matter which is largely one in which the Court concerned exercises its discretion. An order of transfer would, in very rare cases only, be open to revision; and in the circumstances prevailing in this particular case I do not consider that my powers of revision are attracted because the learned District Judge in passing his order was acting in the exercise of his jurisdiction. Even if he arrived at a conclusion which was a contrary or a perverse one, this would be no reason for me to interfere by way of revision, unless he had acted contrary to some provision of law to the extent that he had acted without jurisdiction.

I now come to the question of whether a similar application under the provisions of section 24, C. P. C. can be dealt with in this Court. The application itself is for re‑transfer of the case on the grounds that the learned District Judge transferred the case for reasons which were not sound. In considering the case at large, it is first necessary to examine the order of the learned District Judge in question, which is reproduced below:-

"This is an application under section 24, C. P. C. for the transfer of proceedings filed by his tenant against the petitioner for fixation of standard rent, in the Court of the Sub‑Judge, Quetta.

There are two grounds on which this application is based. It has been stated that the learned Judge has decided other similar cases in one way and points for decision in those cases and the present cases are analogous. This is no ground for the transfer of case from any Court. Secondly it has been urged that the lower Court made some adverse interim orders in those cases against the petitioner. In support of that the petitioner has produced copies of the relevant orders which are attached. The main ground of the petitioner is that he is apprehensive that he will not get fair justice from the lower Court. I have gone through the interim orders and the oral arguments produced by the petitioner. I do not hold that there is anything to show that the Sub‑Judge would not give the case a fair trial but as I see from the interim orders made by the lower Court from time to time, I find that‑the petitioner is afraid that be will not get a fair hearing. I am in sympathy with the petitioner. His fears may not be justified but they are not unreasonable and consequently I transfer the case from the Court of the Sub‑Judge, Quetta to the Court of the Senior Sub‑Judge in Baluchistan."

The substance of the order of the lower Revisional Court is that, while holding that there is no case for transfer on the ground that the lower Court had decided other cases of a similar natures in a certain manner, the learned District Judge then proceeds to state that there is nothing to show that the Sub‑Judge would not give the case a fair trial. After this remark, he comes to a different conclusion and orders the transfer of the case. The result is that the substance of the order comes to one conclusion while the decision is another.

In my view, it is an essential ingredient of the law, in considering an application for transfer, that the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for the petitioner to suppose that he will not receive a fair and impartial trial. Unless such reasonable grounds are shown to exist transfer should not be ordered. In the case before me I am of the view that the defendant‑respondent has failed to show these grounds and it is reasonably clear that the grounds on which he seeks transfer are not that he will not receive a fair trial but that the decision in the case is likely to go against him. This of course is not a valid reason for the transfer of the case as the learned District Judge has already stated. I therefore consider that this is a fit and proper case in which I should, under the provisions of section 24, C. P. C., direct the re‑transfer of the case to the Court of original jurisdiction. Accordingly, I accept the application, and under section 24, C. P. C., order that these three cases will be re‑transferred to the Court of Sub‑Judge, Quetta for disposal according to law.

Parties present. Order announced.

A. H. Application accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.