09/11/2023
Litigants should have confidence in the judicial system---Although application for transfer of a case could be filed but (only) when a party had sufficient reasons, grounds and evidence in his/her possession regarding pecuniary interest, bias of judicial officer etc.
2022 M L D 908
[Balochistan]
Before Rozi Khan Barrech, J
ALI AHMED and 2 others---Petitioners
Versus
GHULAM MUSTAFA and others---Respondents
Civil Revision No.87 of 2020, decided on 31st December, 2020.
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
----S.24---Transfer of case---Bias of Judge---Types of bias listed.
Pakistan Newspaper Society and others v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2012 SC 1 ref.
(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
----S.24---Transfer of case---Grounds---Bias of Judge---Assumption / apprehension of party---Scope---Petitioners (applicants under S.24, C.P.C, 1908) sought transfer of case on the basis of alleged statement/utterance made by the opposing side that they would get favour from the Court---Held, that contention of the petitioner did not constitute sufficient ground for transfer of case as they had failed to establish the bias in judge which was not supported by any sort of evidence or some act or expression of judge visible on ground adversely affecting the case---Mere assumption and apprehension could not be entertained as a tangible evidence, therefore, a mere statement could not be made basis for transfer of case---Case would not be transferred as a matter of routine or at the whims of the parties---No illegality or infirmity was found in the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court rejecting application of petitioners to transfer their civil suit to another civil court---Revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances.
(c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
----S.24---Application for transfer of a case---Scope---Litigants should have confidence in the judicial system---Although application for transfer of a case could be filed but (only) when a party had sufficient reasons, grounds and evidence in his/her possession regarding pecuniary interest, bias of judicial officer etc.
Nasratullah, Attorney for Petitioners in person.
Khalil Ahmed Panezai for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 12th November, 2020.
JUDGMENT
ROZI KHAN BARRECH, J.----Through the instant Civil Revision Petition, the petitioners has challenged the order dated 10.03.2020 (hereinafter the "impugned order") passed by the learned District Judge, Pishin, (hereinafter "the appellate court"), whereby application filed by the petitioners for transfer of the suit titled Ali Ahmed and others v. Ghulam Mustafa and others "from the court of Civil Court Pishin/Judicial Magistrate-III, Pishin, to any other court of competent jurisdiction, was dismissed.
2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the applicant filed an ejectment Suit No.03 of 2019 before the learned trial court. During pendency of the suit, the applicant filed an application under section 24 of Civil Procedure Code for transfer of ejectment suit from the court of Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate-III, Pishin to the file of any court of law largely on the ground that prior to instant suit, another Civil Suit No.24 of 2017 was filed by the applicant No.1 being plaintiff against the present respondents on the basis of agreement dated 24.03.1995 with regard to shops in dispute and the same was dismissed. The transfer of the case also being sought on the ground of bias of the learned Presiding Officer, seized with the trial of the subject case.
3. Notice was issued to the respondents and after hearing arguments on the application under section 24 of Civil Procedure Code, the learned District Judge, dismissed the same on 10.03.2020, whereafter the instant petition has been filed.
4. I have heard arguments of the parties and also perused the record with their able assistance.
5. The transfer of the case being sought mainly on the ground of biasness of the learned Presiding Officer, seized with the trial of the subject case. The Honorable apex Court in a case of Pakistan Newspaper Society and others v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2012 SC 1) has graciously laid down that;
""bias is said to be of three different kinds:--
(a) A Judge may have a bias in the subject-matter which means that he is himself a party or has direct connection with the litigation, so as to constitute a legal interest.
A 'legal interest' means that the Judge is 'in such a position that a bias must be assumed'.
(b) Pecuniary interest in the cause, however, slight, 'will disqualify the Judge, even though' it is not proved that the decision has in fact been affected by reason of such interest. For this reason, where a person having such interest sits as one of the Judges the decision is vitiated.
(c) A Judge may have a personal bias towards a party owing to relationship and the like or he may be personally hostile to a party as a result of events , happening either before or during the trial. Whenever there is any allegation of personal bias, the question which should be satisfied is - "Is there in the mind of the litigant a reasonable apprehension that he would not get a fair trial?" The test is whether there is a 'real likelihood of prejudice', but it does not require certainty." 'Real likelihood' is the apprehension of a reasonable man apprised of the facts and not the suspicion of fools or 'capricious persons'."
6. Keeping in view the aforementioned dictums laid down by the apex court it can be safely observed that the petitioners have failed to establish the bias in Judge because utterances of the other side that they will get favour from the court does not constitute sufficient ground for transfer of case from one court to another. Contention of the petitioners that the trial court is biased against the petitioners is not supported by any sort of evidence. In order to demonstrate bias against Judge it must be established that some act or expression of a judge visible on the ground will adversely affect the case. Mere assumption and apprehension cannot be entertained as a tangible evidence therefore, bald statement cannot be made basis for transfer of case and the case would not be transferred as a matter of routine or at the whims of the parties. Administration of justice requires that litigants should have confidence in the judicial system. Although application could be filed for transfer of a case when a party has sufficient reasons, grounds and evidence in his/her possession regarding pecuniary interest, bias of judicial officer. Certainly, these elements are not available in the case in hand.
7. The allegations leveled in the petition when examined reveal that no substantial evidence has been attached/annexed along with the application for transfer of the case. Most of the allegations are of vague and evasive nature having no substance. Whether mere an apprehension of not getting justice from the hands of the court could be ground for transfer of the case, surely this is not the position of law on the subject. For one to prove bias of a judge has to prove through trustworthy evidence.
I have minutely gone through the record and the impugned order there is no ground for interference under the revisional jurisdiction by this court. In view of the above this petition is dismissed.
MQ/65/Bal Revision dismissed.
;
