AZIZUL HASSAN Versus MRS. SHAHIDA AHMED ASHRAF

This revision is directed against the order, dated 18‑2‑1992, by which a learned Additional District Judge at Lahore dismissed the appeal of the petitioner in limine after listening to the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent, who put in appearance before him of his own accord at the pre‑admission stage, and without hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, who was appellant before him.

2. It appears that the petitioner herein, who had instituted a suit in the Court of a Civil Judge at Lahore against the respondent for a declaration and. perpetual injunction, on the rejection of his stay application by the learned trial Judge, had brought his appeal to the Court of District Judge, Lahore and it was entrusted to Malik Rustam Ali, Additional District Judge, Lahore. While it was still at the limine stage, the learned District Judge, on the transfer application moved by the petitioner, vide his order, dated 17‑2‑1992, transferred it to the Court of Mr. Muhammad Afzal Javid, Additional District Judge, Lahore and asked the parties to appear before the transferee Court on 18‑2‑1992 and directed to dispose it of earlier. The learned counsel representing the parties appeared before the transferee Court on this date and the learned counsel for the appellant sought adjournment in order to prepare. the arguments, which was objected to by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. The learned appellate Judge insisted that the appellant's counsel should address arguments, but he avoided and eventually the appeal was disposed of on the same day after hearing the argument of the respondent's counsel. It seems that the learned Additional District Judge displayed undue haste, under the pressure of respondent's counsel and unnecessarily joined issues with the appellant's counsel by insisting that he should address argument then and there. He could give him a short adjournment for a day or so and could avoid unpleasantness.

3. In view of the above, the impugned order is not sustainable and the same is set aside. Since it is a controversial matter, involving sufficient amount, the appeal fled by the petitioner before the District Court shall be deemed to be still pending and it shall now be disposed of by the learned District Judge himself during the week commencing 14th of March, 1992 positively. Parties are directed to appear before him on 14‑3‑1992.

AA./M‑276/L Case remanded.