PLJ 2025 Quetta 19
Present : GUL HASSAN TAREEN , J.
MUHAMMAD ALAM --Petitioner
versus
Malik ZAHOOR AHMED and another --Respondents
C.R.P. Nos. 759 & 760 of 2022, decided on 27.9.2023.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) --
----Ss. 24 & 115--Application for transfer of suit --Rejected --Mala fide of petitioners --
Disengagement of counsels --Unfounded allegations against judicial officers --Duty of High
Court --Challenge to --The frequent engagement and disengagement of counsels by petitioner
transpires his malafide state of mind --Petitioner had lingered on case and time to time levelled
false and unfounded allegations against Judicial Officers of Subordinate Courts --The transfer of
a case from a Court of competent jurisdiction is justified only if there is reasonable apprehension
in mind of a party concerned-- It is a parallel prime duty of High Court to discourage trend of
making baseless transfer applications by cunning litigants --Applications for transfer of Civil Suit
had rightly been rejected by DJ --The petitioner filed instant Civil Revision Petitions with
malafide intention --A litigant cannot be allowed; to make applications for adjournments, transfer
of Civil Suit from one Court to another and frequent substitution of counsels --If such practice is
not curbed by applying strict measures, prevailing judicial system would not dispense justice,
which is, indeed, it’s constitutional and legal duty--Civil revision dismissed. [Pp. 25, 27 &
28] A, B, C, D, E & F
PLD 1993 Lahore 554 ref.
Petitioner in person.
Mr. Mubashir Hassan Shinwari , Advocate and Respondent No. 2 by Mr. Allauddin Kakar, Asst:
Advocate General.
Date of hearing: 22.9.2023.
JUDGMENT
Since common and interconnected questions of law and facts are involved in these petitions,
therefore, they are being decided together by this common judgment. Facts of each Civil
Revision Petition may, briefly be stated as under: -
Facts of C.R No. 759/2022:
2. This Civil Revision Petition filed under S. 115, the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘C.P.C’),
assails order dated 26 November, 2022 of the District Judge, Quetta whereby, a Transfer App:
No. 108/2022, made by the petitioner for, withdrawal of a Civil Revision Petition No. 34/2022
bearing title Muhammad Alam v. Malik Zahoor Ahmed & others from the Court of learned Addl: District Judge -I Quetta to any other Court at Quetta, was rejected.
Facts of C.R No. 760/2022:
3. This Civil Revision Petition, assails order dated 26 November, 2022 of the District Judge,
Quetta whereby, a Transfer App: No. 88/2022 made by the petitioner for, withdrawal of Civil Suit No. 72/2020 bearing title Malik Zahoor Ahmed v. Muhammad Alam & another, from the Court of learned Civil Judge -I Quetta and, its transfer to any other Civil Court at Quetta, was
rejected.
4. Petitioner appeared in person and inter alia contends that Respondent No. 1, Malik
Zahoor Ahmed instituted a Civil Suit against him on the strength of a forged mutation. Contends
that, he made an application to the learned Civil Judge -VII, Quetta for inspection and verification
of the forged mutation by the Court itself, however, it was rejected by the Court vide order dated
19 August, 2020 which order was assailed by him before the learned Addl: District Judge -I
Quetta (‘Revisional Court’) by filing Civil Revision Petition No. 09/2020. The Revisional Court
vide order dated 21 October, 2020, directed the Trial Court to summon the witnesses, that is, Saddar Qanoongo and Patwari concerned and thereafter, to allow the petitioner to cross -examine
both for ascertaining the genuineness and legal authenticity of the alleged forged mutation. Further contends that the Revisional Court vide subsequent orders dated 20 November, 2021 and
05 July, 2022, once more, directed the Trial Court, to implement its former order dated 21 October, 2020 yet despite that, the Trial Court failed to obey. Contends that vide order dated 05
June, 2014, a Local Commission was issued, however, the Trial Court instead of implementing such order, issued a fresh Local Commission, vide order dated 18 April, 2022, which manifests the inclination of the learned judge of the Trial Court (Civil Judge -I, Quetta) towards the
Respondent No. 1. Petitioner further contends that he had formulated thirteen points for
determination however, none was added by the Trial Court in the letter issued to the learned
Local Commissioner for site inspection whereas, one point of the Respondent No. 1 was split into three components and then referred to the learned Local Commissioner for determination. Contends that the learned Civil Judge -I, Quetta is biased against him, therefore, he made an
application to the learned District Judge, Quetta for withdrawal of Civil Suit No. 72/2020 from the Court of learned Civil Judge -I, Quetta and its transfer to any other Civil Court. However,
vide impugned order, the learned District Judge, Quetta without looking into such contentions of the petitioner, has illegally rejected the application.
5. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1, Mr. Mubashir Hassan Shinwari, Advocate
strenuously opposes these petitions and contends that since 2012, petitioner is hampering the proceedings of the case on one pretext or the other merely to make longer his illegal possession on the suit property. Contends that the suit was formerly transferred from the Court of learned Civil Judge -IV, Quetta to the learned Sr. Civil Judge -I, Quetta on application of the petitioner
and, thereafter to the Courts of learned, Ci vil Judge -V, Sr. Civil Judge -I, Civil Judge -VII, Sr.
Civil Judge -III and finally to the Court of learned Civil Judge -I, Quetta, yet, inspite of that,
petitioner is unsatisfied. Further contends that the Trial Court has implemented and obeyed the order dated 21 October, 2020 passed by the Revisional Court. Muhammad Saleem Patwari
appeared twice before the Trial Court, however, petitioner was reluctant to cross -examine him,
therefore, the Court had rightly closed his right of cross -examination. He finally contends that,
the apprehension of petitioner against the learned Judge of the Trial Court would not show that
the Trial Judge is in any manner biased against the petitioner, or that he is unable to do justice between the parties. Finally, the learned counsel supported the impugned order.
6. Heard. Record perused.
7. Perusal of record transpires that on 15 October, 2012, Respondent No. 1 instituted a Civil
Suit against the petitioner, in which it has been pleaded that petitioner has encroached upon his 1000 sq: ft land and sought recovery thereof. The Respondent No. 1 has instituted the suit on the strength of his mutation, regarding that, petitioner is of the opinion that it has been forged by the Respondent No. 1. While the suit was pending before the learned Civil Judge -VII Quetta,
petitioner had made an application dated 20 May, 2019 to the Court for inspection and verification of the allegedly forged mutation, cancellation thereof and initiating proceedings against the Respondent No. 1 under Ss. 209, 420 and 468, the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. Vide order dated 19 August, 2020, the Trial Court rejected the application and observed that petitioner may cross -examine the representative of Revenue Office and can ask questions with regard to the
genuineness of such mutation. Record transpires that, petitioner had assailed the order of the Court by filing a Civil Revision No. 09/2020 before the Revisional Court. The Revisional Court
vide order dated 21 October, 2020, disposed of the Revision Petition in the following terms:
‘In effect, the perusal of record reveals that in the course of trial, the
representative of revenue authorities i.e. Saddar Qanoon- go and concerned Patwari duly
appeared alongwith the concerned record, but were not duly cross -examined by the
appellant, being so, without issuing the notice to the respondents and deeply touching the merits of the case, the revision petition is hereby allowed with direction to the learned trial court to call upon the representative of Revenue Authorities ibid and the appellant be permitted to cross -examined the said witnesses to ascertain the genuineness and legal
authenticity of impugned mutation ibid. File be consigned to record.’
8. Record further transpires that the learned Civil Judge -VII, Quetta in strict compliance of
the order dated 21 October, 2020, summoned Muhammad Saleem Patwari (PW -3) and case was
adjourned for 17 November, 2020. On the adjourned date, witness Muhammad Saleem Patwari alongwith record appeared before the Court, however, neither the petitioner nor his counsel were in attendance. The petitioner’s son appeared and sought an adjournment which was allowed subject to costs of Rs. 2,000/ -and case was adjourned for 20 November, 2020. On 20 November,
2020, witness Muhammad Saleem Patwari again appeared; whereas, petitioner appeared in person, however, was reluctant to cross -examine the witness as well as the Respondent No1. The
Trial Court vide case diary dated 20 November, 2020 proceeded to close the right of cross -
examination of the petitioner and case was adjourned and fixed for filing of list of witnesses of the petitioner. Thus, the Court had complied with and obeyed the order dated 21 October, 2020 passed by the Revisional Court in letter and spirit.
9. The petitioner instead of assailing the order dated 20 November, 2020, whereby, his right
to cross -examine the PW -3 was closed, on 06 November, 2021, made a CMA No. 07/2022 under
S. 151, the C.P.C to the Revisional Court, in the disposed of Civil Revision No. 09/2020, for
suspension of proceedings of the Trial Court [ i.e. Sr. Civil Judge -III, Quetta, as suit was
transferred to that Court]. On 20 November, 2021, the Revisional Court passed the following order:
‘Called. Applicant Muhammad Alam present in person. Respondent Zahoor Ahmed present in person. Report of Senior Civil Judge -III, Quetta received. Arguments heard.
The learned Civil Judge -III, Quetta is directed to comply with the Court’s order dated
21.10.2020, accordingly. Application disposed of in the above terms. File after completion be consigned to record.’
10. Record further transpires that petitioner had obtained the afore order through
concealment of material facts. Petitioner had concealed that, on 17 November, 2020, witness Muhammad Saleem Patwari was in attendance but case was adjourned on the request of petitioner’s son. Petitioner also concealed the fact that vide order dated 20 November, 2020, his
right to cross -examine the said witness had already been closed by the Court. As such, petitioner
obtained the order dated 20 November, 2021 by concealment of order dated 20 November, 2020 passed by the learned Civil Judge -VII, Quetta. So far as summoning of Qanoongo as witness for
cross -examination of petitioner vide order dated 21 October, 2020 passed by the Revisional
Court, is concerned, the Qanoongo had never appeared as witness of Respondent No. 1 in the suit, for, he was not cited as a witness in the list of witnesses filed by the Respondent No. 1. Therefore, the word ‘Qanoongo’ in the order dated 21 October, 2020 appears to be a clerical error. Thus, the order dated 21 October, 2020, was complied with and obeyed by, the Subordinate Courts in letter and spirit. Therefore, the ground agitated by the petitioner for transfer of Civil Suit, has rightly been turned down by the learned District Judge, Quetta vide
impugned order.
11. The second ground agitated by the petitioner for transfer of Civil Suit is also baseless.
Petitioner contended that, he had formulated thirteen points for determination through site
inspection by the Local Commission, however, the Trial Judge had not included anyone in the
order of reference. I have gone through the case record which transpires that the learned Local
Commissioner submitted his report, to which petitioner filed objections. The Trial Judge
accepted the objections of the petitioner and rejected the report of learned Local Commissioner
vide order dated 28 August, 2023. The former order of the Court with regard to the issuance of local commission was set- aside by this Court, therefore, the contentions of petitioner, that the
learned Trial Judge is bias against him are totally unfounded.
12. The Respondent No. 1 instituted the suit on 15 October, 2012, against the petitioner for
recovery of possession of 1000 sq: ft. Now, we are in September, 2023. The suit is pending since
eleven long years, however, due to malafide intention and delaying tactics of the petitioner, the
same has not yet come to its ultimate conclusion. The petitioner engaged eleven counsels in the
suit, a brief description thereof is as under:
S. No Particulars Case diary
1. Mr. Abdul Qayyum Lehri, Advocate
undertook to file power. 03.11.2012
2. Mr. Farooq Anwar Yousafzai, Advocate filed power. 20.11.2012
3. Mr. Ejaz Lango, Advocate filed
power. 12.12.2012
4. Mr. Asadullah Advocate filed power 21.12.2012
5. Mr. Hafeezullah, Advocate appeared for petitioner. 17.09.2015
6. Mr. Qutab Khan, Advocate filed power. 13.03.2018
7. Mr. Abdul Malik, Advocate was engaged. 03.04.2018
8. Mr. Muhammad Ibrahim, Advocate undertook to file power. 11.04.2018
9. Mr. Abdul Sattar, Advocate filed power. 18.04.2018
10. Mr. Farooq Mengal, Advocate filed power. 27.05.2019
11. Mr. Abdul Ghaffar Advocate appeared on behalf on the petitioner. 19.04.2021
The frequent engagement and disengagement of counsels by the petitioner transpires his malafide state of mind. The petitioner, at any cost, is bent on to hamper and linger on the Civil Suit and, he remained successful by making frivolous applications, transfer applications, maligning the judicial officers and seeking unjustified adjournments.
13. As, has been mentioned above, the petitioner engaged and disengaged eleven counsels.
Apart from doing so, he, time and again, expressed lack of confidence on the impartiality of the learned Judges of the Subordinate Courts and made frivolous applications for transfer of the Civil Suit from one Court to another. The particulars thereof are as under:
S.
No. Withdrawn from Transferred to
1. Court of learned Civil Judge -IV,
Quetta Court of learned Sr. Civil Judge -I, Quetta.
2. Court of learned Sr. Civil Judge -
I, Quetta Court of learned Civil Judge -V, Quetta.
3. Court of learned Civil Judge -V,
Quetta. Court of learned Sr. Civil Judge -I, Quetta.
4. Court of learned Sr. Civil Judge -
I, Quetta Court of learned Civil Judge -VII, Quetta.
5. Court of learned Civil Judge -
VII, Quetta Court of learned Sr. Civil Judge -III,
Quetta.
6. Court of learned Sr. Civil Judge -
III Quetta. Court of learned Civil
Judge -I, Quetta.
Now petitioner once more seeks transfer of the Civil Suit from the Court of learned Civil Judge -
I, Quetta, which not only shows his malafide intention rather proves that he is bent on to play
with the judicial system.
14. On 25 May, 2023, petitioner made an application expressing his lack of confidence upon
the learned Local Commissioner. On the same date, the trial Court dismissed the application and observed that, ‘making of such application shows nothing but to hamper the proceedings.’
15. Vide order dated 27 October, 2015, petitioner was proceeded against an ex- parte order.
On 25 November, 2015, the said order was recalled subject to cost of Rs. 3,000/ -. Again on 07
June, 2016, petitioner was declared ex- parte, however, on his application, the ex- parte order was
recalled vide order dated 15 June, 2016. On 18 April, 2022, the petitioner was declared ex -parte
for the third time, however, on his application, the third ex- parte order was recalled on 16 June,
2022 subject to costs of Rs. 5,000/ -, which has proved that petitioner is creating hurdles so that
the Civil Suit would not reach to a logical conclusion.
16. Vide order dated 21 December, 2017, right of petitioner to cross -examine, Respondent
No. 1’s witnesses was closed by the learned Civil Judge -VII, Quetta and costs of Rs. 15,000/ -
was imposed upon the petitioner. On 09 February, 2021, the learned Sr. Civil Judge -III, Quetta
was pleased to close the right of evidence of petitioner. On 17 February, 2021, petitioner’s right
to depose on oath in rebuttal was closed by the learned Sr. Civil Judge -III, Quetta which orders
(both) have attained finality.
17. So far as Civil Revision Petition No. 759/2022 is concerned, the petitioner has filed a
baseless Civil Revision Petition before the learned Revisional Court in which he had challenged
an order passed by the learned Civil Judge -I, Quetta whereby, the name of Local Commissioner
was corrected as Asif Nasir instead of Asif Khilji. Such error was clerical in nature, therefore,
petitioner could not have assailed the same by filing Civil Revision. In his application for
transfer of such Civil Revision Petition from the learned Revisional Court, the petitioner had
mentioned that the learned Presiding Officer of the Revisional Court has failed to implement the orders of his predecessor in office, that is, 21 October, 2020 and 20 November, 2021. However,
the learned District Judge vide impugned order has rightly dismissed the petitioner’s application
for transfer of the Civil Revision Petition. The instant Civil Revision petition assailing the order
of the District Judge transpires the malafide intention of the petitioner. Even otherwise, the
instant Civil Revision Petition has become infructuous for, the Civil Revision Petition pending
before the Revisional Court was dismissed vide order dated 14 April, 2023, as such, the same is liable to be dismissed on this ground too.
18. In the instant petitions, the petitioner has not only levelled unfounded allegations against
the learned Civil Judge -I, Quetta but also against the learned District Judge, Quetta, which are
hereunder reproduced:
ﻧﻮٹ: ﺳﯿﺸﻦ ﺟﺞ ﻧﮯ ﺣﻘﺎﺋﻖ ﺟﺎﻧﻨﮯ ﮐﮯ ﺑﺎوﺟﻮد ﻣﻌﺎﻣﻠﮯ ﮐﻮ ﮔﮭﻤﺎ ﭘﮭﺮا ﮐﺮ اﺻﻞ ﺣﻘﺎﺋﻖ ﺳﮯ ﮔﻮل ﻣﻮل ﮐﺮ
ﮐﮯ اور ﺣﻘﺎﺋﻖ ﮐﻮ ﭼﮭﭙﺎ ﮐﺮ اﭘﻨﮯ آرڈر ﻣﯿﮟ ﺳﻮل ﺣﺞ -1 ﮐﮯ ﺗﻤﺎم ﻣﻨﺪرﺟہ ﺑﺎﻻ ﺑﯿﺎن ﺷﺪه ﻏﯿﺮ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻧﯽ اور
ﻣﺪﻋﺎ ﻋﻠﯿہ ﮐﮯ ﺧﻼف ﯾﮑﻄﺮﻓہ ﮐﺎرواﺋﯽ ﭼﮭﭙﺎ ﮐﺮ اﻟﺰام ﻣﺪ ﻋﺎﻋﻠﯿہ ﭘﺮ رﮐﮭ ﮐﺮ ﻣﺪ ﻋﺎﻟﯿہ ﮐﻮ اﻟﺰام دی ﮐہ ﻣﺪ
ﻋﺎﻟﯿہ ﺗﺎﺧﯿﺮی ﺣﺮﺑہ اﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎل ﮐﺮ رﮨﺎ ﮨﮯ اور ﻣﯿﺮے درﺧﻮاﺳﺖ ﮐﻮ ﺧﺎرج ﮐﺮ دی۔
The contentions are totally unfounded. I have gone through the entire record of the Civil Suit
which manifests that petitioner has lingered on the case and time to time levelled false and unfounded allegations against the Judicial Officers of the Subordinate Courts. The petitioner has also accused the learned District Judge, Quetta. The dignity and high- standing of Judges and
Courts has to be defended for the sake of independence of judiciary and for the effective
administration of justice. This has to be done, especially in the face of conduct of the petitioner.
Such conduct must be curbed, if the honour and dignity of the Judges and Courts are to be persevered. The transfer of a case from a Court of competent jurisdiction is justified only if there is reasonable apprehension in the mind of a party concerned that the Court would not be able to
act fairly and impartially. It is one of the important duties of the High Court to maintain such
confidence. What is a reasonable apprehension must be decided in each case with reference to
the incidents and circumstances of the case. Nevertheless, it is a parallel prime duty of the High Court to discourage the trend of making baseless transfer applications by the cunning litigants, so that public confidence in the judicature would not drain away. In the case of Sameer Ehsan Ullah Makhzan and three others v. Muhammad Asif Zaman and three others reported in PLD 1993
Lahore 554, it was held as under:
‘4. I have considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the
petitioners and have also perused the comments submitted by the learned Civil Judge. There is no cavil with the proposition that justice is not only to be done but it should appear to have been done and further that any genuine apprehension in the mind of the litigant which is based on valid and reasonable grounds that he shall not get justice at the hands of the Presiding Officer, will be a valid ground for transfer of a case from that Court. However it is equally important that the Courts should not be unnecessarily
harassed merely on the basis of baseless apprehension, of reckless litigant, which is
result of whims. surmises and conjectures. Learned Judicial Officers who preside the
Court, have to be given a full protection against frivolous allegations in view of the
onerous, noble and dignified duty they are performing while deciding the cases, and for
performance whereof they are directly responsible to the Almighty Allah. They should not
be allowed to be harassed and maligned unnecessarily by the
litigants merely because they pass judicial orders against the said litigants.’
As such, petitioner is liable to be burdened with special costs for filing these frivolous petitions.
19. What has been discussed and observed hereinabove, the petitioner even then, again made
applications to the learned District Judge Quetta for transfer of Civil Suit from the Court of
learned Civil Judge -I, Quetta to any other Court, which have rightly been rejected by the learned
District Judge, Quetta vide impugned order. The petitioner filed the instant Civil Revision
Petitions with malafide intention. Since the date of service of summons of the Civil Suit on the petitioner, that is, 22 October, 2012, he has lingered on the Civil Suit of the Respondent No. 1 for eleven long years on one baseless pretext or the other. Still suit is at the trial stage and it would have to travel across the appellate and revisional stages. A litigant cannot be allowed; to make applications for adjournments, transfer of Civil Suit from one Court to another and frequent substitution of counsels. If such practice is not curbed by applying strict measures, the prevailing judicial system would not dispense justice, which is, indeed, it’s constitutional and legal duty.
For the foregoing, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed and the petitioner is penalized and
burdened with special and exemplary costs of Rs. 100,000/ -(Rupees one hundred thousand only)
which shall be paid by the petitioner to the Respondent No. 1 on or before 30 November, 2023. I
would like to express the hope that the Trial Court would also expedite the decision of the Civil
Suit which has already remained pending, for a long time.
(Y.A.) Civil revision dismissedThis judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.