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, relevant portion of the same is reproduced herein below:- "53. It is important to note that this concept of bias is repugnant to Islamic Law. The Holy Qur'an, enjoins upon decision-makers to adjudicate in every matter dispassionately without fear or favour.
It exhorts to prepare themselves for the doing of the job than be discouraged. The purpose behind is to build up such a character in decision makers that they are able to do justice irrespective of the parties before them or their personal likes or dislikes of the parties or the subject-matter.
Further, it also wants to inculcate in the litigants a habit of accepting a fact for ever that no injustice shall visit them even though the decision maker is a close relation, a friend or enemy of any one of them.
"54. In Chapter XXXVIII, Verse 27 Qur'an commands "O David Lo! We have set thee a viceroy in the earth, therefore, judge aright between mankind, and follow no desire that it beguile thee from the way of Allah, Lo! Those who wander from the way of Allah have an awful doom, for as much as they forgot the day of reckoning." Verse 153, Chapter VI provides: "Give full measure and full weight in justice. We task not any soul beyond its scope. An if ye give your word, do justice thereunto, even though it be (against) a kinsman; and fulfill the covenant of Allah. This He commandeth you that haply ye may remember.
"O ye who believe! Be ye staunch in justice, witnesses for Allah, even thought it be against yourselves or (your) parents or (your) kindred, whether (the case of) a rich man, or a poor man, for Allah is nearer unto both (than ye are). So follow not passion lest you lapse (from truth) and if ye lapse or fall away, then lo! Allah is ever informed or what ye do. " Chapter V, verse 8: "O ye who believe! Be steadfast witnesses for Allah in equity, and let not hatred of any people seduce you that ye deal most justly. Deal justly, that is nearer to your duty. Observe your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is informed of what ye do."
55. It will be seen from the above provisions that God Almighty enjoins upon the judges not to let their passions lead them astray or away them from the path of justice set down for them. The only exception made is that if a decision-maker thinks that he will not be able to do justice in a given situation, he may decline to take up that job, for God Almighty does not task any soul more than its scope. However, if he gives a word i.e. Undertakes and does not decline to do that, he shall be answerable if he does not perform it dispassionately.
Consequently, the lapse or otherwise of a decision-maker is to be judged from the decision itself and not from other circumstances. Again a decision may be quashed by a higher authority in appeal or revision on the ground that it is not correct or valid but it will not be interfered with for the reason that there was real likelihood of bias in view of the facts surrounding the decision-maker viz-a-viz that case. Rather, the decision-maker may be personally liable in case there is a deliberate lapse.
6. I have gone through the order dated 04.01.2016 passed by the learned District Judge, Rahim Yar Khan whereby the application was dismissed after calling the comments from learned presiding officer of trial court who denied the allegations leveled in the petition. From perusal of record, it reveals that learned presiding officer of trial court has not declined that he will not be able to do justice in given situation.
7. Sequel to the above discussion, this petition has no force, hence, same is dismissed in limine with no orders as to cost.