Mian RAUF HUSSAIN vs SADIA SIDDIQUI
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court that allowed a transfer application moved by the respondent, transferring a civil suit pending at Depalpur to Lahore primarily on the ground of convenience. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court properly exercised its judicial discretion in transferring the suit. The Supreme Court held that no legal or other infirmity existed in the impugned order and that the discretion was properly exercised by the High Court under the circumstances. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that the appellate court will not interfere with the discretionary order of the High Court regarding the transfer of a suit from one station to another when such discretion has been exercised properly based on the balance of convenience.
- Whether the High Court has the power to transfer a civil suit on the ground of convenience?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with a discretionary transfer order passed by the High Court?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought; against the order of the High Court allowing the transfer application moved by the respondent with regard to a suit pending at Depalpur. It has, by impugned order, been transferred to Lahore; mainly, on the ground of convenience.
2. After hearing the learned counsel at considerable length we have not been able to discover any infirmity in the impugned order, legal or otherwise. The discretion having been properly exercised by the High Court, in the circumstances of this case, leave to appeal is refused.