Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
P L D 1985 Lahore 115
Before Muhammad llyas, J
SHAHNAZ BIBI-Petitioner
versus
ZULFIQAR ALI-Respondent
Transfer Application No. 280-C of 1984, decided on 30th October; 1984.
-- S. 25-A-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 24--Transfer of family case-Wife prior in time having filed a suit for dissolution of marriage against her husband at C-Suit for restitution of conjugal rights brought by husband against wife also filed at F-Petition by wife for transfer of suit filed by her husband against her to C- Husband making separate petition for transfer of suit against him filed by wife to F- Questions of law and fact likely to arise therein and evidence to be produced by parties, would also, to a great extent be the same-Conflicting findings on such questions, held, could be avoided if both suits were heard and decided by one and the same Court-Wife's suit being earlier in time and she being a female and a pardanashin lady, apprehending trouble at hands of husband in the event of her going to F to defend suit brought against her, held further, deserved to be accommodated in preference to husband Suit was therefore, ordered to be transferred to C in circumstances.
Mst. Irshad Bibi v. Bashir Ahmad P L D 1978 Lab. 518 ref.
-- S. 25-A-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 24-Petition for transfer of suit-Question as to territorial jurisdiction-Not proper for High Court to decide question of jurisdiction in connection with . transfer application before it, an expression of any opinion by High Court on issue of territorial jurisdiction was likely to influence decision of family Court in that question.-[Jurisdiction].
Mst. Irshad Bibi v. Bashir Ahmad P L D 1978 Lah. 518 ref. Faiz Muhammad Sadiq for Petitioner. Kh. Haris Ahmad for Respondent. Date of hearing : 30th October, 1984.
Mst. Shahnaz Bibi is wife of the respondent, Zulfiqar Ali. She has made this petition for transfer of a suit for restitution of conjugal rights, brought against her, by the respondent. That suit is pending before the Senior Civil Judge, exercising powers of Judge, Family Court, Faisalabad. On the other hand, the petitioner has filed a suit for dissolution of marriage, against the respondent, which is being heard by Rao Akbar Ali, Judge, Family Court, Chichawatni, District Sahiwal. She has made this petition (T. A. 280/C of 1984) for transfer of the respondent's suit to the above Court at Chichawatni. As against this, the respondent has made a separate petition (T. A. No. 264-C of 1984) for transfer of the petitioner's suit to the said Court at Faisalabad. (In this petition, the respondent has mentioned the petitioner as Shahnaz Begum). This order shall dispose of both the petitions.
2. In view of the nature of the two suits, common questions of law and fact are likely to arise therein and the evidence to be produced by the parties will also, to a great extent, be the same. Conflicting findings on such questions can be avoided if both the suits are heard and decided by one and the same Court. Further, if the two suits are allowed to be: heard by the Courts now seized of them, the petitioner will have to go to, Faisalabad to defend the suit brought by the respondent and the latter will have to visit Chichawatni to resist the suit instituted by the former. It is, therefore, my desire that one of the parties should be saved of the bother and expense to which she/he would be put for going to a place other than the place of her/his residence to contest the suit against her/ him. Which of the two parties should be helped in this regard is the question which now falls for consideration. Since the petitioner is a female but the respondent is a male, and the petitioner claims to be a pardahnashin lady and apprehends trouble at the hands of the respondent in the event of her going to Faisalabad to defend the suit brought against' her, I feel that she deserves to be accommodated in preference to the, respondent. Her suit is also earlier in time. I am, therefore, inclined to transfer the respondent's suit to Chichawatni.
3. It was contended by learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner lived in Samundari, District Faisalabad, and not in Chichawatni, District Sahiwal, and, therefore; the Family Court at Chichawatni did. not have territorial jurisdiction to try the suit instituted by her. Whether or not the petitioner ordinarily resides within the local limits of the Family Court of Chichawatni is a question of fact which, if raised before the said Court, will be judicially determined by it after recording the parties' evidence. In my humble opinion, it would not be proper for m to decide the question of jurisdiction in connection with the transfer application before me and in the absence of the parties evidence. I did not call upon the parties to produce evidence nor this is the stage for doing. Expression of any opinion by me on the issue of territorial jurisdiction is likely to influence the decision of the learned Family Court on that question. I would, therefore. not like to say anything in the matter while disposing of the petition in hand. The view taken by me is supported by the case reported as Mst. Irshad Bibi v. Bashir Ahmad (P L D 1978 Lah. 518).
4. For the reasons enumerated earlier, it is a fit case for transfer of the respondent's suit from the Court of Family Judge (Senior Civil Judge), Faisalabad, to that of the said Family Court at Chichawatni. 1, therefore, order accordingly, The parties are left to bear their own costs.
M. Z. M. Order accordingly.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer