On 19-1-76 the petitioners instituted a civil suit for the cancellation of two documents. One of these documents was a power of attorney executed and registered at Lahore. The other was a sale deed executed and registered at Kasur which then formed a part of Lahore District. The suit was initially filed before the Senior Civil Judge, Lahore. It was transferred for trial to the Court of Mr. Allah Bakhsh Ranjha, Civil Judge, Lahore. On 1-7-76 Lahore District was split up and a new district with headquarter at Kasur was constituted. By an administrative order the petitioners' suit was transferred to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kasur.
2. In this application the petitioners pray that the suit be transferred back to a civil Court at Lahore.
They state that they are residents of Lahore and that respondent No. 2 who is the attorney of respondent No. 1 is also engaged in business at Lahore. Thus it will be more convenient for the parties if the suit is tried at Lahore. They also allege that the respondents are persons of some influence in Kasur and have been threatening them with physical harm in case they visit Kasur for pursuing their suit.
3. The respondents have resisted this application. It is contended on their behalf that sufficient cause has not been shown for the transfer of the suit to Lahore. It is denied that they have held any threat to the petitioners.
4. The petitioners have not given any specific instances of the threats allegedly issued to them by the respondents. In the absence of such instances I am not prepared to take their accusation seriously. As regards the influence allegedly enjoyed by the respondents the petitioners are again very vague. In any event if the respondents hold some position of importance in Kasur that is not likely to deter the civil Courts a; Kasur from deciding their suit on its own merit.
5. However, there is another aspect of the matter. Admittedly, one of the documents impugned by tae petitioners, to wit, the power of attorney, was executed and registered at Lahore. Thus a part of the cause of action arose at Lahore. Consequently, even though the sale deed was executed and registered at Kasur, the petitioners could validly institute their suit at Lahore also for an option was available to them to file their suit either at Lahore or at Kasur. It is well established that when a suit can she brought in more than one Court the plaintiff being the dominus Lids has the right to choose his own forum. Section 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure no doub5 permits a defendant to apply for the transfer of the suit to another Court but then it will require more substantial grounds than more comparative convenience of the parties before the choice of the plaintiff can be interfered with. To override the right of the plaintiff the balance of convenience must be overwhelmingly in favour of the suit being proceeded in a Court different from the one 9n which he has instituted it. In Roop Chand and others v. Gokal Chand and others (AIR 1924 Lah. 249) Shadi Lal, C. J. While dealing with the right of a plaintiff with regard to the choice of forum, observed t "Now the cardinal principle, the soundness of which is beyond dispute, is that the plaintiff as the arbiter lids has a right to choose his forum, and that the Court is exceedingly reluctant to interfere with this right. The jurisdiction conferred upon the Court is of an exceptional character and should be exercised very cautiously and only when a clear cause has been shown. I am not prepared to accede to the proposition that the mere circumstance that t:: e defendant's convenience would be promoted by the transfer should be regarded as an adequate ground for depriving the plaintiff of his right to file his suit in any Court allowed by law but I recognize that if the defendant establishes a manifest preponderance of convenience in his favour, the Court would be justified in granting his prayer."
Similarly in Ruchi Ram Khattar v. Sarab Narain Shah (AIR 1928 Lah. 159), Jail Lal, J. Stated : "The principle, however, is well established that it is a right of the plaintiff to choose the forum for his action and that in deciding whether the plaintiff should be deprived of that right a very strong case must be made out by the defendant, and further that in deciding a suit should or should not be transferred it is not merely the convenience of the defendant that has to be considered, but the plaintiff's convenience also should be borne in mind."
6. Since the transfer was made through an administrative order the parties shall bear their own costs.