ORDERSHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

C.P No. S- 448 of 2018

________________________________________________________________

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE ______________________________________________________________________

Hearing of case (Priority)

1. For order on CMA 4518/2018 (Ex)

2. For hearing of main case.

3. For hearing of CMA 4519/2018 (Stay)

21-05-2018.

Mr. Hamayoun Shaikh Advocate for petitioner.

.-.-.-.-

Mr. Hamayoun Shaikh Advocate has filed this constitutional petition on the grounds mentioned in the petition.

Today Mian Abdul Salam Arain Advocate files vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.2, which is taken on record.

Mr. Hamayoun Shaikh Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that he apprehends that petitioner will be deprived of his fundamental right of a fair trial as mentioned under Article 10-A of the Constitution. It has been further stated that he has no objection if the Rent Application No. 03/ 2016 Re- Madarsa Anwar ul Islam Ghousia Faridia vs. Aslam Parvez is transferred to some other Rent Controller having jurisdiction in the matter. The only ground mentioned in this petition is that the petitioner has been discriminated against; while arguing the matter it has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the application for depositing the arrears of rent was allowed in a slip shod manner, however, said order has not been appended with the present petition, in support of petitioner’s stance.

On the other hand Mian Abdul Salam Arain Advocate who represents the respondent No.2, the contesting respondent, has controverted the arguments of Mr. Hamayon Shaikh Advocate. He has specifically submitted that the order of depositing the arrears of rent was also challenged in constitutional petition but without any success.

Be that as it may and without touching upon the merits of the Rent case, if without plausible reasons and substantial grounds, such petitions / transfer applications are entertained, it would lead to a situation where in effect parties and their advocates would be at liberty to opt for courts and benches; which is neither permissible under any scheme of law nor it can be made permissible either directly or indirectly in any manner whatsoever. Such practice would undermine the authority of the Courts, in particular, the district courts and their Presiding Officers / Judges.

In view of the above the present petition / transfer application is dismissed, however, with an observation that the learned Rent Controller will decide the matter expeditiously after giving full opportunity of hearing to the present petition and keeping in view the established principle that justice should not only be done but it should manifestly seen to be done.

JUDGE

Irfan/PA.