This petition has called in question the order dated 13th May, 1981 whereby the learned District Judge, Lahore transferred under section 24, C. P. C. a case from one subordinate Court to another.
2. As it appears from the very order, Mr.. Afzal Hussain Kazmi, Civil Judge, who was seized of the execution proceedings was transferred from Lahore, and his substitute had not yet arrived when the learned District Judge on 13th May, 1981 passed the impugned order withdrawing the case from him and transferring it to Mr. Zubdatul Hussain, Civil Judge, Lahore. He directed the file to be sent to the transferee Court at once, because according to his information the parties were appearing before it in another case that day. The order has been assailed in revision on the ground that it was passed without notice to the petitioner. It was contended that the impugned order was not passed by the learned District Judge of his own motion, but on the move of the respondent who, as it appeared from the order, had supplied him the relevant information. An allegation was, therefore, directed against the learned District Judge that for transferring the case in such a haste and without issuing notice, he was influenced by the respondent.
3. Section 2.4 (1) (a), C. P. C. Provides that on the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and after hearing such of them as desire to be heard, or of its own motion without such notice, the High Court or the District Court may at any stage transfer any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending before it for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same. 1t means, therefore, that the learned District Judge was competent to withdraw the suit from one Court and transfer it to another either suo motu or upon application by a party. In the former case notice to the parties was not needed, but if action was to be taken on an application then the parties were required to be heard. In the instant case there is no indication that the learned District Judge had taken action on the application of any of the parties, or that any of the parties was present before him. The contention that the proceedings were taken on the initiation of the respondent does not find support from any cogent material. Thus the allegation that the learned District Judge was influenced by the respondent is also not substantiated.
4. As it appears. The impugned order, has been passed by the learned District Judge of his own motion, and not on an application of any of the parties, was an administrative order not affecting merits of the case or any of the rights of the parties, and for that reason it was not a "case decided" and could thus not be agitated in revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to All Naki v. Damodar and others (A 1 R 1917 Lah. 37) and Labu Ram and another v. Karla Ram (AIR 1925 Lah.
189) which lay down that section 24, C. P. C. Requires the Court to issue notice to the parties before it makes an order otherwise than of its own motion, and an order of transfer made without notice to the other party can be set aside in revision and on the application of one party. The facts and circumstances of the said cases are distinguishable, inasmuch as transfer was ordered there on the application of the parties. It is however, held, in Kesho Das v. N. C. Goyal Co. (AIR 1938 Lah. 95) that where case is transferred under Section 24, C. P. C. No revision lies from the order of transfer, but if it is found that the application for transfer is not bona fide one, the case can be retransferred.
This view is taken because the transfer by the Court -of its own motion is ordered for administrative business, that is why no notice is needed. Under section 115, C. P. C. The revisional Court calls for the record of any case which has been "decided" by any Court subordinate to such Court and in which no appeals thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears (a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or (c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, as stated earlier, the impugned order is not a case decided. It does not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity, nor is there any departure from jurisdiction. In the circumstances, the revision is not competent. No Cogent ground has been made out for the revision petition to be entertained. There is thus no ground for an interference in revision.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition has no force. It is dismissed with no order as to costs.