1. ' Honourable the Chief Justice (Retired) of the Supreme Court, Mr. SA. Hague, acted as an Arbitrator for resolving of the disputes between the parties and gave his Award in favour of the petitioner. The Award was filed in the local Civil Court at Lahore. Respondents objected to the Award and submitted their objections to it. Petitioner did not raise objections. The Award is sub judice in the Civil Court for making it Rule of the Court. Without taking evidence, the date is fixed for hearing arguments on the objections taken to the Award. While the matter was proceeding to trial in the Civil Court, an application under section 24 of the Civil P.C. Was filed by the petitioner to recall the case-file from the subordinate Court for its trial by the High Court, in its original civil jurisdiction. It was urged that since important points of law of public importance were likely to arise for decision iii the case and the Arbitrator had held the highest judicial office in the country, it may be of some embarrassm ent to .The learned trial Court to sit on his judgment and to act totally impartially and with complete detachment. It was also hinted at that the Honourable Chief Justice (Retired) may also feel some inconvenience or embarrassment to enter appearance before a subordinate Court.
2. Some instances were quoted for transfer of the cases in which either the sitting or retired Judges of the superior Courts were either a party or a possible witness.
3. ' Respondents opposed the transfer of case from the Trial Court to the High Court for its trial on the original side. It was urged that it was a routine and ordinary arbitration matter and there was no reason for creating a class distinction in respect of members of superior judiciary and it must not be an embarrassm ent for a Judge of superior Court to appear in a Court of justice, regardless of its grade.
4. ' I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also examined the examples quoted at the hearing. Some of them proceeded on the agreement of the parties and were, therefore, of not much assistance for discovering a real ratio in them. Reported cases proceeded on distinguishable facts. In the present case, no point of public importance or difficult question of law touching the interpretation of the statute or the Constitution were involved. Without much probe, it appeared to be an ordinary arbitration matter. Thousands of the like were pending in different Courts of the country and members of the subordinate judiciary were effectively tackling with them. In some cases, retired members of superior judiciary either act or were acting as Arbitrators. Merely that a retired Judge constituted an arbitral Tribunal was per se not a ground for withdrawal of the trial from the subordinate Court for its trial by the High Court in iits original civil jurisdiction. If that were so, all arbitrations done by the members of superior judiciary would have to be brought before the High Court for which there was no good precedent. Upon acceptance of the assignment, the learned Judge is expected to be acquainted with its implications, which possibly includes an appearance before a Court in which the award is likely to be filed. As for myself, I have never thought that appearance in a Court of one's own country could ever be embarrassing. Court after all is a Court. Be it a subordinate Court or a higher Court. Ali grades of Courts are busy in administering justice at their own levels and this factor was common between them. Respect to the Court and upholding of its dignity was prime-most for every one. It infuses confidence in the Court and adds to and enhances its prestige. Therefore, I have not been able to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner for transfer of the case for its trial by the High Court in its original civil jurisdiction. In view of the above, petition is dismissed. No order as to costs in this Court.