Ch. NUSRAT ULLAH vs ATHAR JAMIL
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal directed against the order of the High Court, which dismissed in limine the petitioner's application under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the transfer of a civil suit pending before a Civil Judge in Lahore. The petitioner had sought transfer alleging bias and improper conduct on the part of the trial judge, which allegations were examined and rejected by both the District Judge and the High Court upon calling for a report from the trial judge. The core legal question concerns the exercise of supervisory and appellate discretion regarding the transfer of civil proceedings based on allegations of judicial bias. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts dismissing the transfer application were based on the facts and circumstances of the case, were neither patently erroneous nor perverse, and did not raise any question of law of sufficient importance to warrant interference. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming that transfer requests unsubstantiated by cogent proof and aimed at delaying proceedings will not be entertained.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts refusing to transfer a civil suit under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
- Can a civil suit be transferred on mere allegations of bias and family relations with the trial judge without substantiation?
- Whether an application for transfer of a suit aimed at delaying proceedings can be dismissed in limine?
- Section 24, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
1. MUHAMMAD AKRAM, J.-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.
2. 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.
Cited by 1 case
- JURIO MAL Versus NANIK RAM 2016 YLRN 33