' Instant revision petition called in question judgment/order dated 3-5-2005 passed by the learned District Judge, Rawalpindi, whereby transfer application under section 24 Civil Procedure Code, filed by the respondents was accepted and their suit was withdrawn from the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge and was entrusted to the Court of Mr. Abid Rizwan Abid, Civil Judge Ist Class, Rawalpindi.
2. On suit of respondents Nos.1 to 6, learned Senior Civil Judge had directed status quo with regard to affairs of respondent No.7 through interim order dated 4-2-2005, which on representation by the petitioner was recalled holding that respondents Nos.1 to 6 had intentionally concealed pendency of a Constitutional petition before this Court, directed against public announcement dated 29-10- 2004, vide order dated 9-4-2005. The learned Senior Civil Judge did not decide stay application filed by respondents Nos.1 to 6 and adjourned the case for arguments on application under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. Initiated by the petitioner.
3. Respondents Nos.1 to 6 aggrieved of recall of status quo order, filed a petition under section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code before the learned District Judge, asserting that since the learned Senior Civil Judge pre-judged the matter in an unwarranted manner, without going through the documents and thus would not get justice from him. Petitioner contested the transfer application but the same was allowed, as noted above. The learned District Judge while passing the transfer order on 3-5-2005 directed the transferee Court to dispose of the stay application afresh by taking proceedings as those were before 9-4-2005, without being influenced by the remarks by earlier learned trial Judge or by the observations made in the order of transfer. Petitioner being aggrieved of withdrawal of suit from the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, by the learned District Judge through order dated 3-5-2005 filed instant revision petition, wherein respondents in response to notice have appeared and are represented through their counsel.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have examined their respective submissions besides the record produced by them. The learned District Judge on application of respondents Nos.1 to 6 had required the parties to maintain a status quo with all respects to the affairs of respondent No.7 vide his order dated 16-4-2005, but this order stood rescinded with decision of the main transfer application on 3-5-2005, as no such injunctive order was passed while transferring the case and instead transferee Court was directed to dispose of stay application filed by respondents Nos.1 to 6 afresh.
5. As far as transfer of suit from one Court to another is concerned, recall of injunctive order earlier issued with remarks that respondents Nos.1 to 6 were guilty of intentional concealment of facts, in absence of examination of those documents, which were not on the file, really created a negative impression, which may have been unintentional on the part of the learned trial Judge, yet in order to undo the apprehensions earned by respondents Nos.1 to 6, the correct course was adopted by the learned District Judge, whereby no prejudice has been caused to either of the parties. There is a known canon for administration of law that the justice should not only be done to the parties, but it must appear to have been done by the Court and to bring home this principle, the only course open for the learned District Judge was to direct transfer of the case. None of the parties to the lis, has any vested right to have decision of any matter from the Court of his choice and since the learned District Judge has directed the transferee Court for fresh decision of the injunction application of respondents Nos.1 to 6, to my mind, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner.
Above all, a judicial discretion regarding transfer of cases vested in the learned District Judge in terms of section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code for which no specific condition has been laid down and the Presiding Officer after satisfaction of his judicial conscience, has to exercise those powers.
The order impugned revealed that the discretion so vested was exercised on the basis of known settled principles, governing the subject and at the same time, it was not tainted with arbitrariness or fancifulness. The learned District Judge did not commit any illegality/irregularity, as envisaged by section 115, C.P.C., in absence of which no interference in revisional jurisdiction is permissible, under law.
6. For the reasons noted above, there is no force/merit in the petition in hand, hence the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. Since the order dated 3-5-2005 by the learned District Judge was suspended by this Court on 16-5-2005, therefore, the parties are directed to appear before the transferee Court on 10-6-2005.