--S. 24(1)--Application for transfer of case--Threats of dire consequences--Non-mentioning of any means regarding threats--

 PLJ 2022 Quetta 44

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)--

----S. 24(1)--Application for transfer of case--Threats of dire consequences--Non-mentioning of any means regarding threats--Allegations were not supported by oral or documentary evidence-- It is settled proposition that parties cannot be allowed to seek transfer of case from one Court to another without any valid ground--Applicants have taken ground that respondent has threatened them of dire consequences but failed to mention by what means Respondent has threatened them, in whose presence when threat was made, on what date and month s Respondent threatened them--Alleged allegation has not supported by any evidence--Party who seek transfer of case must adduce some evidence, either oral or documentary in order to prove his contention--Mere apprehension is no valid reason for transfer of case to another Court--Application was dismissed. [Pp. 46 & 47] A, B & C

2013 MLD 739 and 2021 MLD 1197 ref.

Mr. Attaullah Langove, Advocate for Applicants.

Mr. Sadiq Kakar Advocate and Mr. Ayub Tareen, Additional Advocate General for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 30.6.2021.

 PLJ 2022 Quetta 44
Present: Abdul Hameed Baloch, J.
ZAIBO and others--Applicants
versus
HABIBULLAH and 2 others--Respondents
C.T.A. No. 4 of 2021, decided on 2.7.2021.

Order

The applicants/plaintiffs have filed instant application seeking transfer of case (Zaibo and others v. Habibullah and others) from the Court of Civil Judge, Loralai to any other competent Court of jurisdiction at Quetta, as the Respondent/ Defendant No. 1 is advancing threats to the applicants/plaintiffs of dire consequences for withdrawal of the suit.

2. Learned counsel for the applicants/plaintiffs contended that the applicants/plaintiffs are residents of Hyderabad (Sindh). The predecessor of applicants/plaintiffs was owner of the land situated at Loralai. On demise the referred to property was devolved upon the applicants/plaintiffs. The Respondent/Defendant No. 1 illegally and without any title occupied the land of the applicants/plaintiffs and sold out the same. The applicants/plaintiffs approached the Respondent/ Defendant No. 1 and requested for possession of the land but he threatened them for dire consequences. The applicants/plaintiffs have threat to their lives; therefore, they could not be able to freely proceed with their case. Prior to filing instant civil suit the applicants/plaintiffs have filed CP No. 1015 of 2020 before this Court, which was disposed off on 13th October, 2020, with the observations that “the petitioner may approach may approach the SSP Loralai and concerned Judicial Magistrate for the relief claimed for. “ The applicants/plaintiffs have been threatened by Respondent/Defendant No. 1 to withdraw the case otherwise he will kill them, therefore, for the applicants/plaintiffs it is not possible to proceed to Loralai on each and every date of hearing, as such prayed for transfer of the case.

3. While the Respondent/Defendant No. 1 vehemently opposed the contention of the applicants/plaintiffs and stated that mere apprehension is no ground for transfer of the case. The applicants/plaintiffs have neither provided any call data in order to prove the threats nor reported the matter to concern forum. He prayed for rejection of the application.

4. Heard and perused the record. The record reveals that the applicants/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration, possession and permanent injunction in the Court of Civil Judge, Bori at Loralai. The Respondent/Defendant No. 1 filed written statement. Before filing the instant civil suit the applicants/plaintiffs filed constitutional petition Bearing No. 1015 of 2020 before this Court for providing security which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 13th October, 2020. The relevant para reads as under:

“Thus, in view of above, the petitioner may approach may approach the SSP Loralai and concerned Judicial Magistrate for the relief claimed for. The concerned law enforcement agencies are bound under the Article 9 of the Constitution to provide security to every citizen, therefore, the concerned, authorities should provide personal hearing to the petitioner and to consider his grievance, strictly in accordance with law. The petitioner may approach the forum provided by law with regard to any issue. If the petitioner approaches any forum, his grievance should be redressed, strictly in accordance with law and on its own merits. The petition is disposed of accordingly."

5. It is settled proposition that the parties cannot be allowed to seek transfer of the case from one Court to another without any valid ground. Such practice cause delay in the proceeding before the Competent Court of jurisdiction and cause inconvenience to other party. The record reflects that the applicants/plaintiffs have taken ground that the respondent/Defendant No. 1 has threatened them of dire consequences but the applicants/plaintiffs failed to mention by what means the Respondent/Defendant No. 1 has threatened them, in whose presence when the threat was made, on what date and month the Respondent/Defendant No. 1 threatened them. The alleged allegation has not supported by any evidence. Even the applicants have not taken legal proceeding on such threat. The party who seek transfer of case must adduce some evidence, either oral or documentary in order to prove his/their contention. Mere apprehension is no valid reason for transfer of the case to other Court. Reliance is placed on case Mst. Rukhsana v. Mian Imtiaz Aleem, 2013 MLD 739, wherein it was held:

“4. The petitioner no doubt is a female but there are five females on the opposite side also. The political figures cannot exercise any influence on the Judicial Officers because they are under obligation to decide the cases on merits and strictly in accordance with law as they are answerable to their superiors in this world and to Allah Almighty hereinafter.

Whatever status of the family of the parties may be, it will have no bearing on the outcome of the suits. The transfer of the petitions from one Officer of D.G Khan to the other officer posted at the same place also does not constitute a valid ground for transfer of the civil suits. If the petitioner has any genuine apprehension, she may move an application before the police authorities and also seek protection through the learned trial Court. The power under section 24, C.P.C. should be exercised with due care and diligence because frequent transfer of the cases is one of the main causes for delay in administration of justice. The suits cannot be made shuttle cocks at the whims of the parties and should not be transferred from one District to the other only on the basis of the self concocted or feared apprehensions. The petition is without merits and the same is hereby dismissed.”

This Court in case Abdul Khaliq v. Muhammad Anwar Kasir, 2021 MLD 1197 held:

“4. It is also observed that the learned counsel for applicants (plaintiffs) made an attempt to tag that criminal incident with civil litigation and to base the same for transfer of the civil case to another place just to create trouble and inconvenience for the respondents (defendants), which prima-facie seems to be creation of malafide intention, as the transfer of case from the Loralai to somewhere else will create inconvenience for both the parties and their witnesses. Even otherwise, parties are close to each other and also residing in the same city and there is no history of their previous enmity, thus a minor incident cannot be based for transfer of the case for which FIR has already been lodged and law is taken into motion. The learned counsel for applicants (plaintiffs) has failed to bring on record any

sufficient cause for transfer of the case from the trial Court to somewhere else. It also appears from the record that the learned counsel for the applicants is also one of the plaintiffs, as such, in civil litigation he can make an alternate arrangement of an Advocate to proceed with their case. If at all the contents of FIR are taken into consideration even then the incident had taken place in between the respondents and taking the advantage of the same the applicants (plaintiffs) have joined hands with the Respondent No. 18 to avail the sympathizes of her in their favour, but it may be clarified that parties cannot be allowed to seek transfer of the case from one Court to another without showing sufficient cause or in absence of any valid ground, such practice tend to frustrate and cause delay in lawful proceedings pending before the Court of competent jurisdiction and also cause inconvenience to the other party. In the instant case, the applicants have failed to show any reasonable cause and has also not raised any valid ground for seeking transfer of the case from the trial Court, which is the requirement of Section 24 C.P.C.”

Thus in the circumstances the application is dismissed being without merits.

(Y.A.)