' IBAD-UR-REHMAN LODHI, J.---Through this transfer application under Section 24 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the order passed by learned District Judge, Lahore, on 17.11.2016, while exercising jurisdiction vested under Section 24 C.P.C., has been called in question.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset of the hearing of this petition, has been asked to show the competence of transfer application under section 24, C.P.C. Before this Court challenging the findings arrived at by learned District Judge in exercise of his powers vested in him under the same provision of law, to which he had no satisfactory reply.
3. For ready reference the provisions of Section 24 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are reproduced herein below:-- General power of transfer and withdrawal.--
(1) 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---
(a) 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, or
(b) withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in any Court subordinate to it, and
(i) try or dispose of the same; or
(ii) transfer the same for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same; or
(iii) re-transfer the same for trial or disposal to the Court from which it was withdrawn.
(2) Where any suit or proceeding has been transferred or withdrawn
(2) Where any suit or proceeding has been transferred or withdrawn under subsection (1), the Court which thereafter tries such suit may, subject to any special directions in the case of an order of transfer, either re-try it or proceeded from the point at which it was transferred or withdrawn.
(3) For the purposes of this Section, Courts of Additional and Assistant Judges shall be deemed to be subordinate to the District Court.
(4) The Court trying any suit transferred or withdrawn under this section from a Court of Small Causes shall, for the purposes of such suit, be deemed to be a Court of Small Causes.
4. It is, thus, obvious that the District Judge, in fact, exercises two kinds of jurisdictions, first by taking suo motu notice and secondly on the application of any of the parties involved in the litigation.
When the District Judge exercises the jurisdiction on suo motu basis he, in fact, supposes to pass an administrative direction not affecting the merits of the case or any of the rights of the parties and, thus, such order cannot be called "a case decided" qualifying any aggrieved person to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115, C.P.C. However, whenever the District Judge exercises a jurisdiction under Section 24, C.P.C. On the application of any party, the order concluding such proceeding, is no doubt qualifies to be an order, which can be called as a "case decided" and in this regard reliance can be placed on "American Life Insurance Company v. M.S. Khawaja" (PLD 1960 Karachi 568). "Dayabhai Jiwandas and others v. A.M.M. Murugappa Chettyar"
(AIR 1935 Rangoon 267) (Full. Bench) and "Majeeda Begum v. Muhammad Din" (1982 CLC 1560).
5. In all the cases where jurisdiction under Section 24, C.P.C. Is exercised by learned District Judge on the move of a party in the litigation, a revision from his final order is competent. Reliance in this regard is placed on the cases titled "Muhammad Tufail and others v. Nazir Ahmad Khan" (1992 ALD 531), "Chowdhury Muhammad Sarwar v. Sakhawat Hossain and others" (PLD 1968 Dacca 849), "Qureshi Mahmud Ali v. (K.B) Malik Bashir Ahmad Khan" (PLD 1953 Balochistan 9), "Baijnath Prasad Singh v. Dasrath Prasad Singh and another" (AIR 1958 Patna 9) and "Narinjan Singh and others v.
Kirpal Singh" (AIR 1925 Lahore 189).
6. It is, thus, held that if the proceeding is not transferred by the learned District Judge by exercising his suo motu power on administrative side but the jurisdiction under Section 24, C.P.C., in fact, is exercised on the move of one of the parties in the litigation, the said order can competently be called in question through a revision petition before this Court under section 115, C.P.C.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, opted to withdraw this transfer application in order to avail alternate remedy under the law. ##TW##
8. This petition is disposed of as such.