PLJ 2022 Lahore 312
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)--
----Ss. 24 & 115--Application for transfer of case--Rejected--Grievance of petitioner--Respondents were trying to delay matter--Direction to--District Judge, Khanewal is directed to transfer matter to some other Court of competent jurisdiction for its disposal--As other party is aggrieved of fact that petitioners are trying to delay matter, trial Court to which matter shall be entrusted shall expeditiously proceed with same and try to conclude it as early as possible--Civil revision allowed. [P. 312] A
Mr. Muhammad Faisal Bashir Chaudhry, Advocate.
Date of hearing: 31.12.2021.
PLJ 2022 Lahore 312
[Multan Bench, Multan]
Present: Muzamil Akhtar Shabir, J.
versus
MUHAMMAD IQBAL etc.--Respondents
C.R. No. 1405 of 2021, decided on 31.12.2021.
Order
States that through the impugned order dated 20.12.2021 passed by the learned District Judge, Khanewal, transfer application filed by the petitioners has been turned down, without properly appreciating the grievance of the petitioner, which according to him has not been narrated in writing in detail to avoid embarrassment to the concerned.
2. The perusal of record shows that the transfer application filed by the petitioner before the learned District Judge, Khanewal was turned down on the ground that no case had been made out for the said purpose, besides the stance taken by the respondents that the petitioners were trying to delay the matter was also considered.
3. Without commenting upon the merits of the case or allegations raised by the petitioners, this Court deems it appropriate that in the interest of justice, the Learned District Judge, Khanewal is directed to transfer the matter to some other Court of competent jurisdiction for its disposal. However, as the other party is aggrieved of the fact that the petitioners are trying to delay the matter, therefore, the trial Court to which the matter shall be entrusted shall
expeditiously proceed with the same and try to conclude it as early as possible.
4. However, before parting with the matter it is observed that as this order has been passed in the absence of the respondents, while dispensing with the notice to them as the same may not only delay the disposal of the matter but also cause unnecessary expense to the respondents, if they are aggrieved of the afore-referred arrangement, they may file an application for resurrection of the matter to be decided on its own merits.
5. This civil revision is allowed in the foregoing terms.
(Y.A.) Civil revision allowed
0 Comments