1. Through the instant transfer application, applicant seeks transfer of rent petition and civil suit with the same title“Muhammad Mazhar v. Iftikhar Hussain” filed by the respondent No.3 and civil suit titled “Iftikhar Hussain v. Muhammad Mazhar Javed” filed by the applicant from the court of learned Senior Civil Judge, District Rahim Yar Khan/respondent No.2 to any other court of competent jurisdiction at District Rahim Yar Khan.
2. Brief facts of the application are that a rent petition and a civil suit filed by the respondent No.3 against the applicant is pending adjudication before respondent No.2 and fixed for hearing on 13.01.2016 and 05.01.2016 respectively. The applicant has filed an application before respondent No.1 for transfer of said cases from the Court of respondent No.2 to any other Court of competent jurisdiction, which was dismissed vide order dated 04.01.2016. Hence, this petition.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that behavior of the learned trial court is partial against the petitioner, hence, he will not get justice by the presiding officer of the trial court. Further contends that opposite party is uttering that learned Trial Court is going to decide the case in his favour.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. The utterances of the opposite party to the litigation made outside the Court can in no manner be termed sufficient ground for transfer of cases from one Court to other as the Presiding Officer obviously would not be responsible for the irresponsible utterances of the litigants before him. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned trial court is partial against the petitioner is not supported by the record and appears to be an afterthought and has been made out to seek transfer of cases. It is to be remembered that the transfer of case is deemed expedient whenever it is noticed or apprehended that the attitude and conduct of the Presiding officer was prejudicial. However, in order to sustain the bias against the judge, it must be shown that some act or expression of judge must be available or visible on record. Mere suspicion or artificial apprehension was not sufficient for transfer of the case. The petitioner has not placed on record some tangible evidence in support of the allegation. A bald statement containing the allegation was not sufficient to allow the transfer.
6. From the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears that he is alleging that the presiding officer is biased, therefore, he will not get justice. To controvert this argument, reference may be made to a case reported as “Farooq Ahmad Khan Leghari and 37 others v. Sh. Muhammad Rashid, Chairman, Federal Land Commission and another” (PLD 1981 Lahore 159) passed by learned Division Bench of this Court.
Further information regarding prejudicial conduct of Presiding officer can be solicited from AUJ LAWYERS. Feel free to contact us in case you need any clarification and/or require legal assistance regarding similar matters.