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.