Find a Lawyer

Civil Transfer Application No. 23 of 1984, decided on 27th February, 1985.

---S. 25-A--Transfer application--Suit by wife for maintenance pending at T--Husband subsequently filing suit against wife at L--Application by wife for transfer of suit pending at L to Court at T--Parties in both suits being almost same and evidence in both suits possibly be common -' Held, it was desirable that both suits be tried in one and same Court--Husband's suit arraying four defendants one of whom being female it was not desirable that such female should have to go to L to attend suit which would be very inconvenient for her while husband could easily attend Court at T--Case transferred in circumstances. K.B. Bhutto for Applicants. Nemo for Opponent. Date of hearing: 27th February, 1985.

By the present application the applicants seek an order for transfer of F.C. Suit No. 88 of 1984 pending in the Court of Ist Senior Civil Judge, Larkana to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Thatta. The applicant No. 1 was married to the opponent. It seems the relations between the parties were estranged so that applicant No. 1 came to stay with her father (applicant No. 2) at Thatta. The applicant No. 1 then filed a suit for maintenance in the Court of Civil Judge, Thatta and such' suit was registered as family Suit No. 17 of 1984. This suit was filed on 19-5-1984. It seems that opponent thereafter filed a suit, against the four applicants before me, for recovery of golden ornaments valued at Rs. 20,000 in the Court of Ist Senior Civil Judge, Larkana on 15-8-1984. This would show that the suit filed in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Larkana was subsequent to the filing of the suit by the applicant No. 1 in the Court of Civil Judge, Thatta.

The opponent has not appeared. Since the parties in both the suits are same viz, applicant No. 1 and the opponent, and in the context the evidence in the two suits may also be common, it is desirable that both the suits may be tried in one and the same Court. On the other hand, in the suit filed by' the opponent, four defendants have been arrayed. One out of these four defendants is applicant No. 1, who is female. It is not desirable that a woman should have to go from Thatta to Larkana to attend the suit, as it is very inconvenient. On the other hand, the opponent can easily attend the Court at Thatta. In the above circumstances, this application succeeds and I direct that F.C. Suit No. 88 of 1984, now pending in the Court of Ist Senior Civil Judge (Mahraj Saligram v. Beena Kumari and 3 others) shall be transferred to the Court of the District Judge, Thatta who may either try this suit himself or make it over to a Court of competent jurisdiction. There shall be no orders as to costs. A.A. Application accepted.