' Atir Mahmood, J.--By way of filing the instant Intra-Court Appeal, appellant Mst. Ammara Tasnim Bhutta, Advocate has called in question vires of order dated 08.01.2015 passed by learned Single Judge in Chamber whereby T.A. No, 35/2014 filed by the respondent was allowed.
2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent filed application for transfer of suit titled 'Munir Ahmad v. Ammara Tasnim Bhutta' and Contempt Petition titled 'Mst. Ammara Tasnim Bhutta vs. Mst. Khalida Munir from the Court of learned Civil Judge Ahmedpur East to any other Court of competent jurisdiction at Bahawalpur on the ground that the appellant (the respondent in the Transfer Application) being a practicing lawyer and member of the bar at Tehsil Ahmadpur East is influencing the Court proceedings, as such, free trial thereat, the respondent asserted, was not possible. The appellant contested the application. Learned Single Judge sought report from the concerned Court which supported version of the respondent. Learned Single Judge accordingly accepted the transfer application vide impugned order. Hence this ICA.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant inter alia contends that the appellant never influenced the Court proceedings; that the respondent earlier filed two applications for transfer of the cases which were dismissed by learned District Judge, Bahawalpur which orders were never assailed before any competent forum, as such, these orders attained finality; that the respondent while filing T.A. Before this Court concealed fact of dismissal of her earlier applications, therefore, she, not approaching this Court with clean hands, is not entitled to any relief; that the impugned order is against law as learned Single Judge has himself admitted in the impugned order that the ground raised by the respondent in T.A. Is not sufficient for transfer of the case; that the case be transferred to a Court of some other district except Bahawalpur; that the respondent could not file the T.A. Directly before this Court. He prays that this ICA be allowed, the impugned order be set aside and the T.A. Filed by the respondent be dismissed.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed this ICA and fully supported the impugned order. He has mainly contended that the ICA is not maintainable. He has relied upon the dictums laid down in cases reported as Nazar Muhammad and 3 others vs. Roshan Iqbal and 3 others (2001 CLC 1319 (Lahore); Begum D.F. Hassan vs. Habib Bank Ltd. Lahore (PLD 1974 Lahore 117), Agha Abdul Rahman Khan and others vs. Managing Director, Cholistan Development Authority, Bahawalpur (2004 MLD 1615 (Lahore), Muhammad Hussain vs. Fatch Muhammad (1991 SCMR 1887) and Usman A. Ghafoor and 2 others vs. Messrs Attock Textile Mills Ltd.
And 2 others (1989 SCMR 818).
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Perusal of record reveals that the respondent filed application for transfer of cases from the Court of learned Civil Judge, Ahmedpur East to another Court of competent jurisdiction at Bahawalpur which was contested by the appellant. Learned Single Judge being not satisfied with the contention of the respondent that the Courts proceedings were being influenced by the appellant being a member of bar thereat directed the Civil Judge, Ahmedpur East for submission of report. The learned Civil Judge reported that the appellant being an Advocate and member of Tehsil Bar is threatening and exerting pressing on the Court through office bearers of the bar, therefore, he requested for transfer of the case from his Court to any other Court at Bahawalpur. In the circumstances, learned Single Judge in Chambers seems right in transferring the cases sought for by I the respondent through the T.A.
7. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the cases be transferred to any other district except Bahawalpur is without any force as both the parties belong to Tehsil Ahmedpur and distance of Bahawalpur City is equal for both the parties where they can appear and pursue their cases and no prejudice is going to be caused to any of the parties by the impugned order.
8. Even otherwise, the High Court has vast powers to transfer 'cases from one Court to another subordinate to it under Section 24 of the C.P.C., as such, while accepting the T.A., the learned Single Judge has committed no illegality or acted against the law.
9. Furthermore, learned Single Judge has passed the order impugned under said provision of law in supervisory jurisdiction and not in the original civil jurisdiction, therefore, the provisions of Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 are not applicable in this case, as such, the ICA is not maintainable. Reliance is placed on the ratio laid down in case reported as Begum D.F. Hassan vs. Habib Bank Ltd. Lahore (PLD 1974 Lahore 117). Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to pointed out any illegality in the impugned order calling for interference by this Court.
10. For what has been discussed above, this ICA has no merit. The same is dismissed.