The petitioner, by means of this Constitutional petition, seek; re-transfer of appeal titled "Mst.
Khalida Chaudhry v. Muhammad KhurshiG etc." to this Court, earlier transferred by learned Chief Justice of this Court, to the District Court, Okara for disposal.
The appeal in question was transferred to the District Court, Okara, owing to amendment made on 14-7-1986 in section 18 of the Punjab Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962 whereby the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Court stood enhanced from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 2,00,000.
2. Learned counsel contended that the petitioner's appeal having been entertained by the High Court, she has vested right of having it decided by this Court and this right cannot be taken away except by conferment of retrospectivity on a subsequent law by express provision or necessary intendment. He relied on Maula Dad Khan v. West Pakistan Bar Council (1) in support of his submission.
3. Mr. S. M. Zubair, learned A. A.-G. Assisted by Ch. Ata Ullah, Advocate for the contesting- respondents, on the other hand, submitted that this Court under section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code is competent to transfer the appeal in question on its own motion, to a Court competent to try and dispose of the same. It was further argued that no writ can be issued to quash order of this Court whereby the aforementioned appeal was transferred to the District Court, Okara.
Section 24, C. P. C. Relevant to the extent is reproduced hereunder :-
(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(iii) re-transfer the same for trial or disposal to the Court from which it was withdrawn.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) .
It is, therefore, clear that this Court is empowered to transfer any appeal pending before it for disposal, at any stage on its own motion and even IA without notice to the parties, to any Court subordinate to it provided that] Court is competent to dispose of the same.
After amendment in section 18 of the Punjab Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Court to entertain and
(1) PLD 1975 SC 469 decide the appeals has been enhanced to Rs. 2,00,000, therefore, the instant appeal can competently be disposed of by the District Court, Okara. This question was considered by this Court in Daraz Ali and others v. Nathu Khan (1), and it was held : "As a matter of fact the Ordinance did not modify the forum, nor did it take away from any of the parties the right of appeal. The law simply conferred on the District Judge pecuniary jurisdiction more than he already had, and the High Court while transferring its case to the Court of the District Judge did not change the forum under the amending Ordinance, but had simply transferred it in the exercise of its powers conferred by the Civil Procedure Code."
As regards the other contention that the petitioner has a vested right; for decision of her appeal by this Court, it is well-established that there is no vested right of a person for particular forum, specially when change on forum by law is also a matter of procedure only. In Adnan Afzal v. She 'r Afzal (2) with reference to Crawford, it was observed : "Thus, a statute purporting to transfer jurisdiction over certain causes of action may operate retroactively. This is what is meant by saying that a change of forum by a law is retrospective being a matter of procedure only."
Assuming for the sake of argument, that the petitioner has a vested right of getting her appeal decided by the High Court on the strength of Maula Dad Khan's case cited above, which is otherwise distinguishable, no writ can be issued directing retransfer of the appeal to quash or nullify the effect of a valid order of this Court, whereby her appeal stood transferred to a Court of competent jurisdiction, in view of clear bar as envisaged under sub-Article (5) of Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
4. For the foregoing reasons I find no merit in this petition and accordingly dismiss it.
(1) 1982 CLC 2399(2) PLD 1969 SC 187