The parties are brothers. They are involved in litigation regarding immovable property. On 18-2- 1998 the petitioner filed a suit for possession of the Chobara of a shop in Chichawatni against the respondent. This was followed by a suit filed by the respondent against the petitioner on 15-5-1998 for the possession of a house. Another suit was filed by the respondent against the petitioner for a declaration in respect of the suit property. Mentioned in the plaint of the said suit. This suit was filed on 26-3-1999. All these suits were filed in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Chichawatni in the District of Sahiwal and were pending adjudication when on 17-5-2000 the respondent filed an application before the learned District Judge, Sahiwal for transfer of all the three cases to the District Headquarters. In the application it was averred that a son, namely Muhammad Azam Raza, of the petitioner is, a practising Advocate and a member of the Bar at Chichawatni and because of the influence of the said Advocates the respondent is not getting any justice. An instance noted in the petition was that several Advocates engaged by the respondent for the said case had withdrawn. A notice was issued to the petitioner who filed a written reply denying the said allegation. He explained that his son is a young Advocate who has a few cases and is. Not an influential person at all. As to the said instance of withdrawal of the learned Advocates it was stated that so far as the first case titled Muhammad Ayub v. Muhammad Younas is concerned, it was filed through Ch. Muhammad Sabir, Advocate of Sahiwal and he is still a counsel in the case. It was further explained that in the second case titled Muhammad Younas v. Muhammad Ayub the respondent is represented by a local Advocate but just to provide the basis for the transfer application one after the other two Wakalatnamas were got filed and then withdrawn. Regarding the said Suit No.3 it was stated that an application filed by the petitioner under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., is pending and is not being argued upon. It was further stated that in the said case Serial No.3 no Advocate has withdrawn his power of attorney. The learned District Judge after hearing the parties proceeded to transfer all the three cases to the Court of a learned Civil Judge at District Headquarters, Sahiwal vide order, dated 9-6-2000.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned District Judge has exercised jurisdiction not vested in him by allowing the application for transfer on the grounds stated above.
According to the learned counsel the learned District Judge did not take into consideration the reply put in by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, support the impugned order.
3. I have gone through the several documents placed on record and referred to -by me above. By now it is well-settled that the basic criteria for exercising of jurisdiction under section 24, C.P.C. In the matter of transfer of a suit is the existence of a "reasonable" apprehension in the mind of a party that it will not get justice at the hands of the Presiding Officer. In the instant case there is not a word against any of the learned Civil Judges Chichawatni who are seized of the suits. The present case is rather unusual inasmuch as the complaint is not against the Bench but the Bar. I find that the learned District Judge while proceeding to decide the application has not referred at al to the contents of the written reply filed by the petitioner to the transfer application. It is a matter of record that the cases are pending for over a period of more than one year. In fact the first two suits were pending for a period of more than two years. There is nothing in the transfer application to suggest as to how all of a sudden it has occurred to the respondent that the petitioner's son, being a practising lawyer at Chichawatni is capable of influencing the result of the suits. To my mind this in fact is a slur on the learned Presiding Officer dealing with the cases. The petitioner is stated to be an aged and feeble person who unfortunately got involved in this limitation between the two brothers. Both the parties have already engaged the learned counsel who are pursuing the cases.
So far as the instance quoted in the transfer application as to withdrawal of power of attorney by an Advocate is concerned, I feel that the explanation offered by the petitioner is both credible and reasonable. The learned District Judge, however, did not deem it proper to look into the written reply of the petitioner while proceeding to decide the matter. To my mind no ground for transfer has been made and the impugned order is as such without jurisdiction: This Civil Revision is accordingly allowed and the impugned order, dated 9-6-2000 of the learned District Judge, Sahiwal is set aside. The result would be that all the three suits would go back to Chichawatni. I am told that there are two Civil Judges holding Court at Chichawatni. All the three suits shall now be tried and decided by the Senior of the two.