' This civil miscellaneous application has been filed on the ground that there has been an omission in the order of this Court passed by the former Chief Justice on a transfer application filed before this Court.
2. The brief facts are that the petitioner had filed a suit before a Civil Judge, 1st Class, Khanewal in the year 1980 for the declaration that the decree dated 3-12-1979 obtained by respondents stands vitiated as the same has been obtained by playing fraud upon the Court and for cancellation of the said decree. There was also a suit filed by husband of petitioner No, 1 before the civil Court at Multan for permanent injunction for resisting the claim on the basis of the decree obtained from the civil Court at Khanewal.
3. The relief claimed in the transfer application was for trial of both the suits by a Civil Judge at Lahore. The former Chief Justice vide order dated 25-3-1980 in T. A. No, 26/C-80 observed as under "This civil suit is also transferred to the Court of Mr. Akhtar Naqi Naqvi, ' Civil Judge First Class, Lahore, for reasons to be recorded later."
4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant that though the reasons could not be recorded, yet it is clear from the observation in paragraph 2 noted above that the intention of the learned former Chief Justice was to transfer both the suits to the same Court at Lahore, but due to oversight or omission, it could not be clearly stated. He placed reliance on the use of words "This civil suit is also transferred" to canvass that both the civil suits had been transferred and that factually also this order was accordingly construed and the record of both the cases was sent to the learned Civil Judge at Lahore. This omission has now come to notice and a technical hitch is being faced. In support of this submission, reliance is also placed on the prayer made in the transfer application asking for transfer of both the suits. It is further pointed out that the High Court had sent for the files of both the suits from the Courts below and after hearing both the parties the order orally announced in the presence of counsel was that both the suits had been transferred to learned Civil Judge at Lahore. It was only after copies were obtained that it was discovered that the name of the parties to the suit titled "Mst. Taskeen Khakwani and another v. Mst. Shaheen Khakwani" pending in the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Multan has not been mentioned in the order of the High Court though the file of the case has been transferred to the Court of Civil Judge at Lahore.
5. In the initial stages of the- hearing of this application before me, Mr. Shahzad Jehangir, Advocate appeared for respondents and then instead Mr. S. M. Masud Advocate appeared for the next friend of the minors. It has been pointed out during the hearing that the property of the minors has since been taken over by the Court of Wards. Accordingly Mr. Akram Umar Khan, Advocate after duly receiving instructions appeared from the Court of Wards.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. This is a case of mere accidential omission.
Otherwise the terms and tenor of the order shows that both the suits were transferred to be heard at Lahore. However, without going into detailed controversy, I feel that a case is made out for the transfer of the suit titled Mst. Taskeen Khakwani and another v. Mst. Shaheen Khakwani to be tried by the learned Civil Judge at Lahore who is trying the other suit. This request of the applicant is not being opposed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of Court of Wards who is looking after the interest of minors.
' This application is thus accepted in the above terms without there being any order as to costs.