FAIZ AHMAD ANJUM JANDRAN, J.---- Through the instant civil revision petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.11.2019 passed by learned District Judge Islamabad-W est, whereby application filed by the petitioner for transfer of suit titled "Nadia Asghar v. Shahzadi Fatima and others " from the Court of Mr. Shoukat Rehman Khan, learned Civil Judge, Islamabad-W est to any other Court of competent jurisdiction, was dismissed.
2. Petitioner has contended that conduct of the learned Judicial Officer as per her contention, contained in para-4 of instant civil revision petition, may be premised on personal relationship with the opposite party; that she apprehends prejudicial disposal of the suit by the said Court; that when Wakalat Nama /power of attorney was superseded in the Court then, the learned Judicial Officer passed certain intimidating remarks regarding supersession of power of attorney/ Wakalat Nama; that Judge is biased in the case; her confidence has been shattered upon the said Judicial Officer and she could not expect justice, therefore, revision petition may be allowed.
3. Learned counsel for respondent has vehemently opposed instant petition by submitting that all allegations levelled in the application and even argued before this Court are nothing but bundle of lies. Learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the instant civil revision petition and also moved an application under Section 476, Cr.P.C. {C.M. No.20/2020} for proceedings against the petitioner . Learned counsel placed reliance upon case law reported as PLD 2014 SC 585 {General (R.) Pervez Musharaf v. Nadeem Ahmad, Advocate and another} PLD 2001 SC 568 {Asif Ali Zardari and another v. The State}, 2016 YLR Note 89 {Reayat Khan another v. Nadir Khan and another} 2013 MLD 454 {Liaqat Ali v. Ghulam Huassan and 4 others} and 1994 CLC 886 {Zafar 1qbal v.
Manzoor Hussain}.
4. Arguments heard, record perused.
5. The transfer of the case is being sought mainly on the ground of biasness of the learned Presiding Officer, seized with the trial of the subject case. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case "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. Testing the revision petition on the above touchstone, it does not fall in any of the above categories of bias.
Cases could 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 of ficer. Certainly , these elements are not available in the case in hand.
7. The allegations levelled in the petition when examined, it reveals 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.
8. In view of above, the instant revision petition lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed. As the main revision petition fails, there left no need to proceed with application {C.M. No.20/2020} for initiation of proceedings in terms of 476, Cr .P.C. against the petitioner . It is thus disposed of.