' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---This judgment shall decide C.R. No.262 of 1992 and C.R. No.263 of 1992, as common question is involved.
2. The respondents or their predecessor-in-interest filed suits against the deceased petitioner at D.G. Khan. These suits were transferred under orders of this Court to Multan and were tried and decided by Mian Ashiq Muhammad Faiz and Mr. Muhammad Akram Zaki, learned Senior Civil Judges, Multan on 1-7-1989 and 29-7-1991 respectively. Against both these judgments and decrees separate appeals were filed in the Court of learned District Judge, D.G. Khan. In the matter of C.R.
No.262 of 1992, learned District Judge, vide judgment and decree dated 23-4-1992 after holding that he has no jurisdiction proceeded to dismiss the appeal. In the matter of C.R. No.263 of 1992 learned Addl. District Judge, D.G. Khan while coming to the same conclusion vide order dated 27-4- 1992, returned the appeal to the petitioner for its presentation before a Court of competent jurisdiction under Order VII, rule 10, C.P.C. C.R. No. 262 of 1992 was taken up by this Court on 17-5- 1992 and admitted to hearing primarily on the ground that after holding that he had no jurisdiction, learned District Judge D.G. Khan ought to have returned the appeal for presentation before a proper Court. C.R. No.263 of 1992 was also admitted on the same date.
3. Mian Shamas ul Haq Ansari, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner in these cases argues that the learned District Judge, D.G. Khan had jurisdiction as earlier held by him and in any case he ought to have returned the appeal for presentation at Multan. In the matter of C.R. No.263 of 1992 learned Addl. District Judge had jurisdiction.
4. Mr. Muhammad Naveed Hashmi, Advocate learned counsel for the respondents in these cases, contends that the cases having been transferred under orders of this Court, Section 96, C.P.C.
Would take effect accordingly with reference to the forum of appeal.
5. I have gone through the copies of the records of these cases. There is no denial that civil suits were transferred out of the District under orders of this Court. Needless to state that the moment inter-District transfer was ordered by this Court, the Courts at D.G. Khan ceased to have any jurisdiction. Admittedly the decrees were passed in these cases by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Multan and as such in terms of Section 96, C.P.C., appeal would be to the District Judge, Multan who is authorized to hear appeals from the decisions of the learned trial Court. I, therefore, do find that the learned District Judge or Addl. District Judge, D.G. Khan had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeals filed by the deceased petitioner. C.R. No. 263 of 1992 is accordingly dismissed. C.R. No.262 of 1992 is partly allowed inasmuch as learned counsel has very correctly argued that after holding that he had no jurisdiction, learned District Judge, should have returned the appeal in terms of Order VII, Rule 10, C.P.C.
6. With consent of all present, both the C.Rs. Are disposed of with direction that both the appeals shall be heard by learned District Judge, Multan before whom parties shall appear on 27-7-2005.
Records shall be requisitioned. In the first instance learned District Judge shall dispose of all available legal objections arising because of non-filing of the appeals in the first instance before a Court of competent jurisdiction and the matter of condonation of delay. In case the said objections are overruled, the appeals shall be decided on their respective merits.
7. No orders as to costs.
8. A copy of this judgment shall be remitted to the learned District Judge, Multan by the office immediately.