Find a Lawyer

(a) West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)‑‑

‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 24‑‑Civil suit pending before a Civil Judge sought to be transferred erroneously under provision of S. 25‑A of Act XXXV of 1964‑‑Transfer application treated to be one under provision of S. 24, C.P.C.

(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑

‑‑‑5. 24‑‑Transfer of cases‑‑Wife's three suits (i) for dissolution of marriage, (ii) dower and (iii) maintenance filed at F‑‑Husband as a counfor‑blast filing money suit at P‑‑Suit of husband transferred to Court at F, being convenient to wife, a Pardanashin lady.

Syed Sarfraz Hussain for Petitioner. Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 20th May, 1987.

Petitioner, Mst. Nuzhat Fahmeeda, has made this petition for transfer of a money suit filed by the respondent, Tariq Ijaz Mirza, in the Court of Mr. Shaukat Ali Sajid, Civil Judge, Pasrur, District Sialkot, to the Court of Mr. Muhammad Riaz Chaupra, Civil Judge, Faisalabad. According to her, in the capacity of the Judge of a Family Court. Mr. Muhammad Riaz Chaupra is hearing the petitioner's three suits, namely, suit for dissolution of marriage, suit for maintenance of her daughter, and suit for recovery of dower debt. It has been alleged by the petitioner that the said suit was instituted by the respondent at Pasrur as a counter blast to the suits filed by her at Faisalabad with a view to causing harassment to her. It has been further averred by her that she is a Pardahnasheen lady and, therefore, cannot go to Pasrur to defend the suit brought by the respondent. She also apprehends danger to her life in the event of her going to Pasrur in connection with the respondent's suit.

2. Opposing the petition, it was urged by learned counsel for the respondent that it has been filed under section 25‑A of the West Pakistan Family Court Act, 1964, which deals with the transfer of cases pending before Family Courts but since the case of which the transfer is sought by the petitioner is a civil suit, it cannot be transferred under the above provisions of law. In reply, it was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the above provisions of law were wrongly cited in the petition and prayed that it may be considered as a petition under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was also maintained by him that wrong citation of law in any proceeding is not fatal to it. This proposition was not refuted by learned counsel for the respondent also. I, therefore, treat this petition as a petition under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. Another point canvassed by learned counsel for the respondent was that the petitioner wanted the respondent's suit to be consolidated with the petitioner's suits at Faisalabad but that was not possible because her suits were being heard by a Family Court but the respondent's suit could not be heard by that Court. I do appreciate this plea of the learned counsel that all the aforementioned suits between the parties cannot be consolidated because they relate to different jurisdictions but since Mr.Muhammad Riaz Chaupra is not only presiding over a Family Court as a Judge but is also presiding over a Civil Court as a Civil Judge. He can hear the respondent's suit as a Civil Judge without consolidating it with the petitioner's suits in regard to family matters. Needless to say that this arrangement would be more conducive to the convenience of the parties than the one in which they will have to appear before two different Presiding Officers.

4. It is obvious that if the petitioner's suits are allowed to be heard at Faisalabad and the respondent's suit is not transferred from Pasrur, the petitioner will have to go to Pasrur to defend the suit brought by the respondent and the latter will have to visit Faisalabad to resist the suits 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 (s) against her him. Which of the two parties should be helped in this regard is the question which now falls for consideration. The petitioner is a female but the respondent is a male. More weight, therefore, deserves to be given to her convenience than to that of the respondent. It has also been claimed by the petitioner that she is a Pardah Nasheen I lady. Further, she apprehends trouble at the hands of the respondent in the event of her going to Pasrur to defend the suit brought against her. The petitioner's assertions in this regard are supported by her affidavit which stands unrebutted. There is thus no good reason to disbelieve what she has averred; and in view thereof I am inclined to accommodate her in preference to the respondent.

5. This petition is, accordingly, accepted and the respondent's suit is transferred from the Court of Mr. Shaukat Ali Sajid, Civil Judge, Pasrur, to the Court of Mr. Muhammad Riaz Chaupra, Civil

,Judge, Faisalabad who is trying the aforementioned suits of the petitioner as the Judge of a Family Court. Parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.

Case transferred.

K.B.A.IN‑48/L‑

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.