' This transfer application seeks transfer of the following cases pending in the Court of Syed Irshad Hussain Abidi, Civil Judge First Class, Lahore to some other Court of competent jurisdiction :
(a) Mst. Zubaida Begum v. Irshad Hussain and Khushnudur Rehman (Suit for specific performance) ;
(b) Khushnudur Rehman v. Abdul Majeed Butt (Ejectment application).
(c) Abdul Majid Butt v. Khushnudar Rehman and others (Suit for declaration).
2. The petitioner had moved a transfer application before the learned District Judge, Lahore earlier (T. A. No, 165 of 1980) but the request was not acceded to and the transfer application was dismissed by the learned District Judge vide his order dated 7-5-1980.
3. Aggrieved by the order of the learned District Judge, the petitioner has come up in the present petition to this Court.
4. A perusal of the order of the learned District Judge shows that the grounds taken before him for transfer of the cases have been reiterated here in this petition.
5. By order dated 8-6-1980, parawise comments were called for from Syed Irshad Hussain Abadi, Civil Judge, Lahore which have since been submitted.
6. The learned Civil Judge has repudiated all the allegations levelled against him.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner enumerated the following grounds for seeking transfer of the cases aforementioned :-
(i) That on 740-1979, Abdul Qadeer the husband of Mst. Zubeda Begum respondent No. 1 and real brother of Arshad Hussain respondent No, 2 was seen in the Services Hospital by one Gulzar Butt whose affidavit has been placed on, record and to whom the former told that be had come to the hospital to meet Syed Irshad Hussain Abidi, Civil Judge who was hospitalized there and to give him a basket of fruits ;
(ii) that on 6-1-1980 the learned Civil Judge decided a point in favour of the respondents without hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner who could not attend the Court on account of sickness ;
(iii) that the husband of respondent No. 1 openly stated that the petitioner is unnecessarily litigating as he would have the decision according to his own desires ; and
(iv) that, earlier also, a case titled Muhammad Shujaat Khan etc. v. Mashkoor Ahmad etc. Was transferred from the Court of Syed Irshad Hussain Abidi by this Court in Transfer Application No, 22/C-T of 1980, vide order dated 12..2-1980 which shows that the learned Civil Judge does not act impartially and there are general complaints against him.
' The learned counsel contended that the above allegations have cast apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that he will not get justice at the hands of the learned Presiding Officer before whom the cases are pending.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents argued that no case for transfer of the cases has been made out as grounds of the nature as taken in this petition are only intended to intimidate the Presiding Officer. He contended that Gulzar Butt is not an independent person but a hireling of the petitioner as is evident from the fact that he is deeply associated with the petitioner's side having stood surety for the father of the petitioner and a witness of surety for the petitioner himself in criminal proceedings under section 107/150, Cr. P. C. Pending between the parties. He has placed on record the certified copies of the surety bonds aforementioned. In this context he argued that the affidavit of Gulzar Butt could not be relied upon at all.
9. As regards the deciding of a point by the learned Civil Judge against the petitioner the learned counsel argued that the point involved was of a trifling nature and was only to the effect as to whether the statement of the plaintiff in the case should be recorded by the Court or through a Commission. He argued that apart from the fact that the petitioner herein was represented by two counsel, one of whom intentionally avoided to appear, the decision otherwise was correct and was not agitated against by the petitioner any longer.
10. The learned counsel for the respondents also argued that all these transfer applications are being made by the petitioner in order to delay the proceedings in the suits and to keep the decision in abeyance, and therefore the discretion of transfer of the cases should not be exercised in favour of a party which does not come to the Court with clean hands.
11. Having considered the controversy involved I am of the view that the reasons advanced on behalf of the petitioner for transfer of the cases have no force.
12. The allegation about the husband of respondent No. 1 and brother of respondent No, 2 having gone to see the Presiding Officer in the Services Hospital with a basket of fruits has been categorically controverted by the learned Presiding Officer. The affidavit of Gulzar Butt obviously cannot be relied upon in view of the submissions made on behalf of the respondents and the placing of certified copies of the surety bonds to show that the said Gulzar Butt is deeply associated with the petitioner and his family having stood surety for the petitioner and his father. It does not commend to mind to believe that a party litigating with another party would tell someone else who is connected with the opponent about his calling upon the Presiding Officer in the Hospital before whom the cases are pending. The very tenor of the affidavit itself which does not show as to why the husband of respondent No. 1 reposed in the deponent and told him about the purpose of his visit to the hospital also casts reflection on the bona fides of the affidavit, especially when the same has been sworn after a lapse of a long time running over a few months.
13. Similarly the deciding of any point by a Presiding Officer in the circumstances in which the matter was decided in the case in hand is obviously not one which could be made a ground for transfer of the cases especially when the legality of the order itself is not challenged by the party which is complaining about the order.
14. Again, the utterances of a party to the litigation made outside the Court can in no manner be termed sufficient ground for transfer of cases from one Court to the other as the Presiding Officer obviously would not be responsible for the irresponsible utterances of litigants before him.
15. As regards the plea that since the case referred to in sub-para. (xiii of the grounds of this petition was transferred from the Court of Syed Irshad Hussain Abidi, the Presiding Officer from whose Court the cases referred to in this petition are sought to be transferred, suffice it to say, can be no reason for allowing this petition. Each case has to be decided on its own men and what weighed with the learned Judge of the High Court to order transfer in one case cannot necessarily be wade a general ground for transfer of the cases from that Court.
16. The learned District Judge had also considered the above aspects of the matter and had rightly come to the conclusion that no ground for transfer of the cases was made out.
17. In view of the foregoing discussion, this petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.