A decree for possession by way of pre-emption was passed in favour of the petitioner on 5-10-1981.
The respondents-vendees filed an appeal on 8-10-1981 in the High Court which was returned on 17- 3-1987, to be presented before appellate authority i.e. The learned District Judge, Kasur, which was filed with an application of condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Another application was filed under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. Seeking permission for amendment of the written statement. Still another application was filed for taking additional ground for condonation of delay. On the other hand, the petitioner filed an application that before hearing of the appeal, application filed by the respondents for condonation of delay be taken up and decided. There was another application filed under Section 476 Cr.P.C. These matters were pending before the learned District Judge, Kasur, when for personal reasons, he did not like to hear and assigned it to a learned Additional District Judge, Kasur on 7-4-1988. The learned transferee Court passed an order as follows:- "This appeal has been received through transfer. The same be registered. As per request of parties present, and, in view of the orders, already passed in this appeal, this case to come up on 12-5- 1988 for arguments in respect of application, seeking amendment of application, submitted under section 5/14 of the Limitation Act, application for amendment of written statement, submitted by the appellants, application under Section 476 Cr.P.C. Submitted by the respondent, application under section 151 C.P.C., submitted by the respondent and for hearing of appeal."
The petitioner has filed the afore titled transfer application on the grounds that the application for condonation of delay should have been decided first before taking up the hearing of the appeal and secondly, that the learned transferee Court had once been a junior to a counsel who had appeared and filed a revision in the High Court .On behalf of the respondent in this very litigation.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the first ground urged is untenable, which was open to the learned appellate Court to have ordered that the application for condonation of delay will be taken up along with hearing of the appeal. However, he has no objection, if the appeal is heard by the learned District Judge, Lahore as the learned counsel for both the parties practise at Lahore.
4. The order of the learned transferee Court adjourning the case to hear the applications including the one for condonation of delay and for hearing of the appeal on subsequent day can hardly give rise to an application for transfer. It is for the Court concerned to pass such orders as it deems fit.
Since the learned counsel for both the parties agree that the matter may be heard by the learned District) Judge, Lahore and it also seems appropriate and in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice that the matter is heard by the said Court. The appeal filed by the respondent along with the applications shall stand transferred to the learned District Judge, Lahore for proceedings as it deems fit in accordance with law. The petition is accordingly, disposed of. The parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Lahore on 30-6-1988 for which date the case stood already adjourned.