GHAZI KHAN vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order passed by the Sukkur Bench of the Sindh High Court, which declined the petitioner's request to transfer a Sessions Case from the file of the Sessions Judge, Khairpur, to an Additional Sessions Judge within the same district. The core legal question was whether sufficient grounds existed to warrant the transfer of the case based on allegations of bias or pressure exerted by the presiding Sessions Judge. Upon review, the Supreme Court observed that the Sessions Judge had denied the allegations of pressuring parties into a compromise. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner's counsel had been absent during the High Court proceedings, erroneously assuming an adjournment would be granted. The Supreme Court held that a counsel cannot claim an adjournment as a matter of right due to their own lack of diligence. Finding no valid grounds for interference and determining that no question of law of public importance was presented, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming that transfer of cases requires substantive justification rather than mere allegations.
- Can a counsel claim an adjournment as a matter of right due to their own lack of diligence?
- Is a transfer of a Sessions Case warranted based on unsubstantiated allegations of pressure by the presiding judge?
- Does a petition for transfer of a case require a question of law of public importance to be entertained by the Supreme Court?
ORDER
' Petitioner is aggrieved by order, dated 22-12-2006 passed by Sukkur Bench of Sindh High Court declining to transfer a Sessions Case from the file of learned Sessions Judge, Khairpur to the Court of an Additional Sessions Judge in the same District.
2. We have heard Mr. Ghulam Qadir Jatoi learned Advocate-onRecord Record for the petitioner.
Perusal of the impugned order tends to reflect that learned Sessions Judge has denied adverse allegations levelled against him and stated that he has not pressurized any party to enter into a compromise. In fact three witnesses have been examined so far. It further appears that on the date of hearing before the High Court learned counsel did not appear and he wilfully chose to remain absent taking it for granted that hearing would be adjourned. In our view, it is absolutely a wrong concept on the part of the counsel and if he was not diligent, he could not claim adjournment as of right and hearing in the matter.
3. Be that as it may, no ground for interference and no question of law of public importance is spelt out with the result that the petition is dismissed.