Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special h gave to Appeal No. 372 of l01r decided on 8th March 1974.
(From the order dated of 6‑1973 passed by the Labors High Court, Lahore, in Review Petition No.30 C of 1973).
‑‑‑‑ S. 24 and O. XLVII, r. I‑Transfer of civil suit‑Review‑Peti tioner's transfer application being dismissed by High Court, application of review of such order subsequently filed but rejected there being no "discovery of new and important matter" or "mistake or error apparent on the face of the record"‑Real grievance in Supreme Court transpiring to be against order of High Court dismissing transfer application Petition being barred by limitation in relation to first order of High Court arid no application for condonation of delay having been made, petition dismissed.‑ [Limitation‑Review].
Petitioner in person.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 8th March 1974.
This petition is from the order of the learned Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court dated 21‑6‑1973, by which be rejected a petition for the review of his earlier order dated 29‑5‑1973, dismissing a petition by the petitioner for the transfer of the two suits between the parties herein, and pending in the Family Court at abort.
The petitioner and the respondent are man and wife. Owing to matri monial disputes between them, the respondent herein filed Sue No. 38‑FC/72 (Farhat Jabeen v. Abdul Rehman) in the Court of Mr. Salamat Ali, Judge, Family Court at Lahore, for the dissolution of her, marriage with the peti tioner. A counter Suit No. 125‑FC/72 was filed in the slime Court by the petitioner herein for the restitution of conjugal lights against the respondent.
The petitioner not being satisfied with tale conduct of the proceedings in the two suits, applied in the Court of the learned District Judge for the trans fer of the two suits to another Court at Lahore. The petitioner's main grie vance was that the learned Judge of the Family Court had improperly allowed the respondent herein to give up a number of witnesses in bar suit for the dissolution of marriage thereby depriving' the petitioner herein who being defendant in that suit was deprived of the of opportunity to have certain docu ments proved by them, upon which he intended to rely or otherwise to woos‑examine them. The learned District Jude having considered the matter by order dated 24‑4‑1973, dismissed the petition. The petitioner then filed another application in the High Court, for the transfer of the said two suits. This was heard by the learned Chief Justice, who dismissed it by order dated 29‑5‑1973. The petitioner then filed an application for review of was order dated 29‑5‑1973 by the learned Chief Justice which was also dismissed on the short ground that there was no ground for review".
The petitioner who appeared in person and has argued his case himself was not able to show that having regard to the provisions of Order XLVII, rule 1, C. P. C. an application for review of the order of the learned Chief Justice dated 29‑5‑1973 lay. There was no "discovery of, new and important matter . . . . . or . . . . mistake or error apparent on the face of the record . . ." to lay a foundation for any such application.
In the course of his submissions it transpired that the petitioner's real grievance was against the first order of the learned Chief Justice dated 29‑5‑1973, by which his transfer application was dismissed. The precise nature of his grievance was that his transfer of application for the transfer ax the two suits was not rightly decided. I other words by this petition, the petitioner sought to question the merits of the order of the learned Chili Justice dated 29‑5‑1973. This he cannot do, because of the bar of limitation, the petition being beyond time by 16 days, in relation to that order. Anti the petitioner has not applied for condonation. Therefore, whatever view is taken, this petition must fail and is, therefore, dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer