SAEEDA BEGUM and 7 others vs DISTRICT OFFICER (REVENUE) JHELUM and 11
This constitutional petition challenges an order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhelum, which dismissed the petitioners' application for the transfer of a civil suit pending before a Civil Judge. The petitioners sought the transfer on grounds of alleged bias, asserting that the trial judge had disclosed his mind while deciding an application for secondary evidence and that the respondent had been observed visiting the judge's chamber with his counsel. The High Court examined the validity of these grounds for transfer. Relying on established precedents, the Court held that an adverse order passed by a judge, or the expression of an opinion during judicial proceedings, does not constitute a valid ground for transferring a case, as such orders are subject to appeal in higher forums. Furthermore, the Court found that vague allegations regarding a party visiting a judge's chamber, lacking specific details of date and time and rebutted by a counter-affidavit, are insufficient to warrant transfer. Consequently, the petition was dismissed in limine, affirming that judicial bias must be substantiated by concrete evidence rather than mere apprehension.
- Does the passing of an adverse order against a party by a judge constitute a valid ground for the transfer of a case?
- Is a vague allegation of a party visiting a judge's chamber, without specific details of date and time, sufficient to justify the transfer of a case?
- Can a case be transferred solely on the ground that the trial judge expressed an opinion while deciding an application for secondary evidence?
ORDER
SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J. The petitioners moved an application for the transfer of case pending in the Court of Mr. Ahmad Iqbal Mian, Civil Judge, Jhelum, which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, vide order dated 18-6-2008, impugned herein.
2. It is contended by learned counsel that learned Court has disclosed its mind while deciding application for secondary evidence. It was also contended that the petitioner has seen the respondent (Jibrael) in the company of his counsel, visiting learned Judge in his chamber. It was lastly contended that conduct of learned Court is prejudicial to the petitioner.
3. Learned Sessions Judge, while passing the impugned order has observed that order. Of dismissal of application for permission to adduce additional evidence, can be assailed in higher forum and is hardly a ground for transfer of the case. The learned Judge who has expressed his opinion has been held not a good ground for the transfer of the case. Reference in this regard can be made to the cases of Eastern Federal Union Insurance Company Limited v. Central Board of Revenue, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad through Member Taxation and another 1982 CLC 2316 and Aminuddin and 4 others v. Salima Bano (1996 CLC 1361). Similarly, it has been had the case of Azad Government others v. Genuine Rights Commission others (1999 M LD 160) that a Judge who has passed an adverse order against party, gives no valid cause for the trar of the case.
4. It has rightly been held by learned court without specific mention of date and time of the visit of counsel and the party to the chamber of learned Judge is hardly a ground for transfer of the case.
Moreso, when these allegations are rebutted in a counter-affidavit.
5. For the foregoing, this petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine.
Cited by 4 cases
- Taj Muhammad and 19 others vs Provincial Government through Chief 2025 MLD 630
- Taj Muhammad Versus Provincial Government through Chief Secretary Gilgit-Baltistan Gilgit 2025 MLD 630
- Syed Muhammad Ali Bokhari vs Federation of Pakistan etc 2024 IHC 176, 2025 PLD Islamabad 48, 2025 PLJ Islamabad 1
- Syed MUHAMMAD ALI BOKHARI Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Islamabad 2025 PLD 48