' MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, J.--- The order dated 3-11-2008, passed by High Court of Sindh at Karachi in F.R.A. No,7 of 2008 has been called in question through this petition for leave to appeal.
By the said order, first rent appeal filed by the petitioner, against the order dated 6-2-2008 passed by the Additional Controller of Rent, Clifton Cantonment Karachi was dismissed.
2. The facts relevant for disposal of this petition are that consequent upon service of a notice of ejectment application filed by respondent No,1 in respect of the demised premises detailed in the impugned order, the petitioner entered appearance in the Court of Additional Rent Controller, Clifton Cantonment, Karachi on 13-11-2007 and sought time for filing written statement. Request was allowed and the matter was adjourned to 1-12-2007. It appears, that nobody on behalf of the petitioner appeared on 1-12-2007, and the matter was adjourned for filing the written statement.
However, on 12-1-2008 one Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Khanzada, Advocate filed Power of Attorney on behalf of the petitioner and moved an application under section 148, C.P.C., thereby seeking extension of time. The Rent Controller dismissed the said application and the matter was ordered to proceed ex parte. Respondent No,1 was accordingly directed to file affidavit in ex parte proof. The application for recalling/setting aside the ex parte order moved by the petitioner was also dismissed on 26-1-2008. Having failed to get any relief from the High Court, in appeal, the petitioner has challenged the appellate order through the instant petition.
3. We have heard Mr. Muhammad Younas, learned Advocate Supreme Court and have perused the record with his assistance.
4. It is an undeniable fact as evident from the case diary that in pursuance of notice, the petitiimer put his appearance through his son before the Rent Controller on 13-11-2007 and the matter was adjourned for filing the written statement. On 1-12-2007 again the matter was adjourned on the request of petitioner's son. However, on 11-12-2007 no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner. The case was adjourned to 12-1-2008 for filing the written statement. The case diary of 12-1-2008 reveals that Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Khanzada and Mr. Naeem Ahmad, Advocates had filed Wakalatnama and application under section 148, C.P.C. On behalf of the petitioner in the morning but they were absent at the time when the matter was taken up. Resultantly, the side of the petitioner/tenant was closed and the respondent/landlord was directed to file affidavit of ex parte proof. The case was adjourned to 26-1-2008.
5. It appears that on 26-1-2008 an application was moved for setting aside the ex parte order. The ground taken in the application for setting aside the order dated 12-1-2008 was that though the written statement was ready to be filed on 12-1-2008 but "due to Oath Ceremony the written statement could not be attested before the Oath Commissioner." The affidavit of Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Khanzada filed in support of the above application revealed in para.3 that on 12-1-2008 due to oath ceremony of elected members of Karachi Bar Association the Court premises were closed and as a matter of fact written statement was prepared but could not be attested by the Oath Commissioner. However, the contents of the application under section 148, C.P.C. Moved on behalf of the petitioner disclose that a prayer was made to the Court for supply of copies and grant of time for filing the written statement. In other words the extension of time was not sought for the reason as mentioned in the application for recalling/setting aside the order. The reason given in the application under section 148, C.P.C. Which was moved on 12-1-2008 totally contradicts the reasons for non-filing of the written statement as mentioned in the application for recalling of the said order. Moreover, the application for recalling/setting aside the order was not supported by the affidavit of the petitioner/tenant. The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the causes are to be decided on merits has also been properly examined and dealt with by the High Court in a judicious manner.
6. At the far end of his arguments learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner faint- heartedly argued that the learned Single Judge who decided the rent appeal has filed a recovery suit against the petitioner and therefore probably may be having some bias against him. He has invited our attention to the plaint in a Banking suit filed before the Banking Tribunal in the year, 1992, a copy whereof has been placed on the record. We are not much impressed by the above contention as the recovery suit pertains to the year 1992 and was filed almost 16 years back. Indeed mere institution of a suit on behalf of Banking company against some barrower/defendant during practice would not be enough reason to preclude a Judge from hearing a matter that too after expiry of more than one and half decade, unless there is an eminent act to reasonably assume the grudge, hostility or bias. Certainly if in case, some apprehensions of such kind occurred in the mind of the petitioner, it could have been brought to the notice of the learned Judge, who then in all fairness should have stayed off his hands. But no such attempt was made. The reply of the Advocate Supreme Court appearing for the petitioner was in negative when a specific question to that effect was put to him. Above plea obviously appears to be an afterthought and has to be simply repelled.
7. Having noticed no legal infirmity or perversity in the impugned order, we are not inclined to interfere therewith. The petition being without merits is dismissed and leave refused. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.