Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 348 of 1979, decided on 15th May, 1979.

(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 14th March 1979 of the Lahore High Court at Lahore in Civil Misc. No. 61 /T of 1979).

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑

--S. 24‑Transfer of suits‑Both Courts below on facts and circum stances of case after going through report of trial Judge satisfied as to no case being made out for transfer of suit pending before trial Judge Conclusion arrived at by Courts below neither patently erroneous nor perverse‑No question of law of any importance raised before Supreme Court against impugned order‑No good reasons, held, existed to interfere‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3).

Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 15th May 1979.

‑The suit filed by the respondent against the petitioner is pending in the Court of Mr. Razi Abbas Bukhari, Civil Judge, Lahore. The petitioner moved an application under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the learned District Judge Lahore for the transfer of the suit from the Court inter alia, on the ground that the learned Trial Judge had directed him in a harsh tone to return the possession of the property in dispute to the respondent because during the subsistence of the status quo order he had forcibly dispossessed him. It was further stated that the peti tioner had seen the respondent with the Civil Judge on The Mall, Lahore and further that the respondent had declared that he would get a decision in his favour because of his family relations with the learned Civil Judge. After calling for a report from the learned Trial Judge, the District Judge, Lahore on the 6th of December, 1978 dismissed the transfer application on the finding that the petitioner had failed to substantiate his allegations. The petitioner then applied to the High Court under section 24, C. P. C. for the transfer of the suit against him from the Court of Mr. Razi Abbas Bukhari, Civil Judge, Lahore. But after going through the report submitted by the learned trial Judge the High Court has also dismissed in limine the transfer application and held that it could reasonably be inferred that the petition was motivated by a desire for delaying and obstructing the proceedings of the trial Court. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed this petition for special leave from the order thus passed by the High Court.

The High Court exercises supervisory authority over its subordinate Courts. In the instant case the two Courts were satisfied that no case bawl been made out for the transfer of the suit pending before the learned trial Judge. The Courts have arrived on their findings on the facts and in circum stances of the case after going through the report received from the Trial Judge on the allegations contained in the transfer application. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner it cannot be said that the conclusion thus arrived at by the two Courts was patently erroneous and perverse. No question of law of any importance has been raised before us against the impugned order passed by the High Court. We, therefore, see no good reason to interfere with it in these proceedings. This petition has no force and is dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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