2025 C L C 130
[Balochistan]
Before Rozi Khan Barrech, J
Mir SHAMS UD DIN--- Petitioner
Versus
Mir ZIA UD DIN and 5 others ---Respondents
Civil Revision No.510 of 2024, decided on 12th September, 2024.
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ---
----S.24 ---General power of transfer and withdrawal of suit ---Scope ---Bias in a judge, proof
of---Petitioner sought transfer of suits on the ground of bias of the Presiding Officer, seized
with the trial thereof and because alleged utterance of other side that they would get the relief
from the Trial Court ---Validity ---Petitioner had failed to establish the bias in the judge
because utterance of the other side that they would get favour from the Court did not constitute a sufficient ground for transfer of the case from one Court to another ---Allegation
of bias of the Trial Court raised by the petitioner was not supported by any sort of evidence as in order to demonstrate bias against a judge it must be established that some act or expression of a judge visible on the ground would adversely affect the case ---Mere
assumption and apprehension cannot be entertained as a piece of tangible evidence; therefore, the bald statement could not be made the basis for the transfer of case, and the case would 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 and an application can be filed for transfer of a case when a party has sufficient reasons, grounds, and evidence in his/her possession regarding pecuniary interest and bias of judicial officer, which elements were not available in the case in hand ---Civil revision was dismissed,
in circumstances.
(b) Administration of justice ---
----Bias in a judge ---Kinds of such bias enumerated.
Pakistan Newspaper Society and others v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2012 SC 1 rel.
Sheikh Muhammad Ali for Petitioner.
Date of hearing: 10th September, 2024.
ORDER
ROZI KHAN BARRECH, J. ---Through the instant Civil Revision Petition, the
petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.08.2024 (hereinafter the "impugned order") passed by learned District Judge Sariab Division Quetta (appellate court) whereby the application filed by the petitioner for transfer of the suit titled as Shams ud Din v. Faryal Bibi being Civil Suit No. 78/2024 and civil suit titled as Faryal Bibi v. Shams ud Din and others being Civil Suit No. 79/2023 from the court of Senior Civil Judge -I Sariab Division
Quetta (trial court) to any other court of competent jurisdiction was dismissed.
2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a civil suit titled as Shams
ud Din v. Faryal Bibi and others, and the respondent filed a civil suit titled as Faryal Bibi v. Shams ud Din and others before the trial court and during the pendency of the suit the petitioner filed an application under section 24 of Civil Procedure Code for transfer of suit from the court of the trial court to the file of any court of law largely on the ground of biasness of the learned Presiding Officer, seized with the trial of the subject cases.
3. Notice was issued to the respondents, and after hearing arguments on the application
under section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, the learned appellate court dismissed the same
vide impugned order dated 17.08.2024, whereafter the instant petition was filed.
4. I have heard the arguments of the petitioner and also perused the record.
5. The transfer of the case being sought mainly on the grounds of biasness of the learned
Presiding Officer, seized with the trial of the subject case. The Honorable Apex court, in a case of 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. Keeping in view the aforementioned dictums laid down by the apex court, it can be
safely observed that the petitioners have failed to establish the bias in Judge because
utterances of the other side that they will get favour from the court do not constitute sufficient ground for transfer of the case from one court to another. The contention of the petitioners that the trial court is biased against the petitioners is not supported by any sort of evidence. In order to demonstrate bias against a Judge it must be established that some act or expression of a judge visible on the ground will adversely affect the case. Mere assumption and apprehension cannot be entertained as a piece of tangible evidence; therefore, the bald statement cannot be made the basis for the transfer of case, and the case would not be transferred as a matter of routine or at the whims of the parties. The administration of justice requires that litigants should have confidence in the judicial system. However, an 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, and bias of judicial officer. Certainly, these elements are not available in the case in hand.
7. The allegations levelled in the petition when examined, reveal that no substantial
evidence has been attached/annexed along with the application for transfer of the case. Most of the allegations are of a vague and mysterious nature, having no substance. Whether mere an apprehension of not getting justice from the hands of the court could be ground for the 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.
I have minutely gone through the record and the impugned order, and there is no
ground for interference under the revisional jurisdiction by this court. In view of the above this petition is dismissed in limine.
SA/95/Bal. Petition dismissed.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.