Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Transfer Application No.118-C of 1987, heard on 7th April, 1987.
---S.24--Transfer of suit--Petitioners filing suit against respondent before Court of competent jurisdiction--Effect--Where petitioners have themselves chosen to file suit against respondent before a Court of competent jurisdiction, there would be, held, no justification to transfer such suit to another place merely because petitioners were likely to suffer some loss or inconvenience in their business--Transfer application being devoid of merit was dismissed.
Sheikh Asghar Ali for Petitioners.
M. Aslam Riaz Ahmad for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 7th April, 1987.
Through the present transfer application the petitioners who have filed a suit at Samundari for perpetual injunction in regard to the property of Anjuman-e-Islamia situate at Tandlianwala, have sought the transfer of the said suit from the Court of learned Civil Judge, Samundari, to some Court of competent jurisdiction at Lahore.
2. It has been alleged in the under consideration transfer application that the petitioners apprehend danger to their lives at the hand of the respondent and his partisans if they are, obliged to go to Samundari to prosecute their litigation. It has also been maintained that the respondent happened to be an influential person and he held out threats that he would get the petitioners' suit dismissed. It has been alleged that on 31-1-1987, the respondent who used to appear in person, was seen sitting in the retiring room of Mr. Ataullah Kauser, Civil Judge, Samundari. It has further been averred that the petitioners businesses at Lahore would suffer if their suit was heard at Samundari.
3. The comments of Mr. Ataullah Kauser, Civil Judge, Samundari, in regard to the allegation that the respondent was seen sitting in his chamber on 31-1-1987 were called. The same have been received. He was vehemently denied this allegation. According to his comments the respondent was not even known to him and as per records of the case in question on all dates of hearing the learned counsel for the respondent used to appear in his Court and on no occasion including 31-1-1987 the respondent personally appeared in his Court. In view of the contents of the comments submitted.by the learned Civil Judge, the allegation that the respondent was seen sitting in the chamber of the Presiding Officer on 31-1-1987 is belied.
4. The petitioners' suit pertains to immovable property which is located within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court of Civil Judge, Samundari, and that is why the petitioners themselves filed the suit at Samundari. That Court alone possesses the territorial jurisdiction to hear the suit. If the petitioners genuinely apprehend any danger at the hand of the respondent they may move the competent authorities responsible for maintaining law and order to take necessary steps in the matter. Such apprehension does not justify the transfer of the suit from a Court of competent jurisdiction. If the petitioners have themselves chosen to file a suit against the respondent before a Court of competent jurisdiction then there can be hardly any justification to transfer the suit to Lahore merely because the petitioners were likely to suffer some loss or inconvenience in regard to their business at Lahore.
5. In view of what has been said above there is no substance in the present transfer application which is, therefore, dismissed with costs.
H.B.T./R-23/ L Transfer application dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer