RASAAL HASAN SYED, J.---Through the instant application the petiti oners seek the transfer of their suit titled "Mst. Kaneez Begum (deceased) throug h her LRs. v. Abdul Khaliq and others " pending in the court of Mr. Asif Seen, Civil Judge, Burewala.
2. It is claimed that a General Power of Attorney dated 04.3.2008 was executed by (late) Kaneez Begum, in favour of real brother Abdul Khaliq (respondent No.1 herein) which was meant to follow up the litigation and that the deceased never intended to incorporate any clause permitting the sale of the property but with mala fide intent, the power of sale was included fraudulently . Petitioners assert that by fraud, some property was disposed of by respondent No.1, the sale being without consideration and permission of principal, suit for declaration, cancellation of mutation No.10 dated 18.1.2013 was instituted in the court of learned Civil Judge, Kharian, District Gujrat. The suit was decreed, the appeal filed against it was dismissed and Civil Revision No. 4904/2016 filed respondent No.1 in this Court was also dismissed on 15.5.2018. It is asserted that in the course of arguments in the series of litigation, it transpired that the property of the petitioner at Burewala was also sold through fraud and forgery and was transferred in favour of respondent No.2. To challenge the alienation, the petitioner claims to have filed a civil suit in the court of Civil Judge, Burewala which is now pending in the court of Mr. Asif Seen, Civil Judge, Burewala.
Petitioners, in the instant application, seek transfer of the said suit on the ground that the petitioners had allegedly suffered on account of fraud and litigation and that the parties reside at Tehsil Sarai Alamgir District Gujrat and therefore, to ensure minimum inconvenience and hassle, the suit presently pending in the Civil Court, Burewala, be withdrawn and transferred to the court of Civil Judge, Kharian, District Gujrat.
3. Learned counsel argued that section 16, C.P.C. permits that a suit could be tried where the defendant actually or voluntarily resides or works for gain and that the courts of law always facilitate the public in securing justice with minimum inconvenience and that the dispute can be resolved expeditiously if the suit is transferred as prayed for .
4. the application has been resisted by learned counsel representing the respondents, who argued that the suit relates to the rights and interest in the immovable property which is situated within the jurisdiction of courts at Burewala and that the provisions of section 16, C.P.C. have been misunderstood by the other side as under the said provision of law the suit could only be filed in the courts within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situated while the place of residence will be immaterial.
5. Having given due consideration to the respective submissions of both sides, it is observed that the request for transfer of suit cannot be legally adhered to. From the record annexed with this application it is manifest that the suit titled "Mst. Kaneez Begum (deceased) represented by LRs. v. Abdul Khaliq and others " for declaration and cancellation of document with consequential relief was instituted in the Civil Court at Burewala, District Vehari. In the suit petitioners challenged mutation No. 1467 dated 26.12.2008 in respect of land measuring 16 kanals 1 marla, situated at Chak No. 317/EB, Tehsil Burewala, District Vehari on the basis of General Power of Attorney dated 04.3.2008, on the ground that the same was without consideration, consent and permission of the petitioner's predecessor . A decree for permanent and mandatory injunction is claim ed as a consequential relief to restrain the sale, alienation or creation of any encumbrance qua the property located at Burewala. Furthermore, a decree for possession of the said land has also been claimed. Section 16(a) & (d) of C.P.C. provides that the suit for recovery of immovable property with or without rent or profit or for determinat ion of any right to or interest in immovable property shall be instituted in the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situated. In the instant case the property subject-matter of suit is situated at Tehsil Burewala District Vehari, the mutation under challenge was attested at the same place, the petitioner is seeking determination of the rights and interest in immovable property and also the possession of immovable property which is situated at Burewala, therefore, the suit could competently be filed at Burewala as was done in this case . It is also observed that the suit was instituted on 03.5.2018 and since then it is pending, while the present application seeking its transfer was filed on 13.3.2019 i.e. after a period of ten months, during which time, the petitioners have been pursuing the litigation through their lawyer .
6. In "Haji Abdul Malik and 10 others v. Muhamm ad Anwar Khan and 26 others " (2003 SCMR 990) it was observed by the honourable Supreme Court to the effect that under section 16 of C.P.C. a suit for declaration relating to rights and interest in immovable property can be instituted in the court within the local limits of which the property is situated and if the property is situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court while the relief claimed relates to the property , the suit will not be maintainable before any other court except the one within territorial jurisdiction of which the property is situated. In view of the rule the request of the petitioners for the transfer of suit from a place where the property subject-matter of dispute is located and the mutation under challenge was attested, cannot be acceded to.
7. The application seeking transfer of the suit from a competent court to a court which will have no jurisdiction in the matter cannot legally sustain. The revenue officials and the record as will be required in the suit also pertain to the area which is located in the jurisdiction of the court concerned and therefore, any transfer of the suit from the said area to a different place, will result in lot of inconvenience in the production of evidence. The preponderance of convenience also favours continuation of trial by the Court where the land is situated and also where the office of the revenue of ficials, who attested the mutation and are holding the record, is located.
8. For the reasons above, the application is dismissed .