2009 PLP 1195 (MLD)

Laws Cited

Representation

• ----S. 5, Sched. & S.25-A---Suit for maintenance---Transfer of suit, application for---Suit filed by the plaintiff for maintenance in Family Court at place 'K' had been sought by the defendant to be transferred to any other Court of competent jurisdiction out of District `K'---Defendant initially sought transfer on two-fold grounds; firstly that father of plaintiff being an Advocate of imminence, commanded a lot of respect in the members of District Bar Association `K' and thus Advocates appearing on behalf of defendant were feeling hesitant to face him; secondly that father of the plaintiff was seen visiting the Presiding Officer in his chamber along with the sitting President of District Bar Association `K'---Counsel for defendant, however, did not opt to press to the extent of said second ground agitated in the transfer application; he however insisted on first ground---Validity---Suit could not be transferred simply on the ground that father of the plaintiff being an advocate of imminence commanded a lot of respect in the members of District Bar Association, the Advocates appearing on behalf of the defendant were feeling hesitant to face him, especially when the order sheet had revealed that suit filed by the plaintiff had been lingering since long---Even the order of payment of interim maintenance had not been passed by the Family Court---Such fact tentatively speaking, had shown the fairness on the part of the, Family Court---From the first day an Advocate practising at Tehsil Courts had been contesting the suit on behalf of the defendant---Besides every Advocate was supposed to watch the interest of his client vigilantly and showing any favour or latitude to the opposite party by a counsel would amount to professional misconduct---Having a soft corner in the heart of counsel of the defendant for the father of the plaintiff, could not be made a ground for transfer of the case---Besides, after all somebody had to cross-examine the father of the plaintiff as special attorney of his daughter, even if the case was transferred to any other Court functioning out of District `K'---Furthermore considering the allegations levelled in the application, the acceptance of the application, was likely to demoralize the Judge Family Court seized of the matter---Application for transfer of case, was dismissed, in circumstances.
• Malik Arab Hussain Asif for Respondents.
• 2. While submitting the instant application the petitioner sought the aforementioned relief on twofold grounds, firstly, the father of respondent No.1 being an Advocate of long-standing and Ex-President of District Bar Association, Khanewal, has a lot of influence in the Bar, secondly, he (father of respondent No.1) was seen visiting Presiding Officer in his chamber along with the sitting President of District Bar Association, Khanewal. However, during the course of arguments learned counsel for the petitioner did not opt to press this petition to the extent of aforesaid second ground agitated in the transfer application. He, however; contends that Muhammad Younas Sheikh, father of respondent No.1, being an Advocate of imminence commands a lot of respect in the Bar and none from the local Bar is ready to contest the case on behalf of the petitioner and that the said Advocate is appearing before the learned trial Judge as special attorney of his daughter but none of the local lawyers is ready to cross-examine him. Learned counsel adds that in the said circumstances the petitioner's case is likely to be prejudiced. In support of his arguments learned counsel has relied upon the case of Mehr Ahmad Nawaz v. Mst. Rashida Begum (1997 CLC 328).
• 3. Conversely, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has opposed this application contending that there is no. doubt that Muhammad Younas Sheikh, Advocate, father of respondent No.1, commands a lot of respect in the Bar but he is man of principles and therefore, the allegation levelled against him in ground No.II of this petition is totally false; that though the said ground has not been pressed into service by the learned counsel for the petitioner yet the fact remains that certain aspersions have been caused not only against the Presiding Officer but against Muhammad Younas Sheikh, Advocate, father of respondent No.1, as well; that acceptance of this application might result in demoralizing the subordinate judiciary and encouraging unscrupulous litigants in adopting a similar course; that from day one the petitioner engaged a counsel from Mian Channun Bar Association, who is pursuing the petitioners case vigorously and vigilantly; therefore, it is wrong to contend that petitioner's case is likely to be adversely affected; that respondent No.1 being a lady it would be inconvenient for her to pursue the case out of District Khanewal and that the application in hand has been filed by the petitioner maliciously to prolong the proceedings pending before the learned Judge Family Court. In support of his arguments learned counsel relied upon the cases of Boolchand v. Qazi Muhammad Bachal (1987 CLC 1109), Mst. Sardar Begum and others v. Aziz Begum and others (1985 CLC 2613) and Allah Rakha v. Nasim Akhtar (NLR 1981 UC 628).
• 5. Insofar as the assertion made in this application to the effect that father of respondent No.1 was seen visiting the learned Presiding Officer/Judge Family Court in his chamber is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner has not opted to press the said ground. His only grievance is that, the father of respondent No.1 being an Advocate of imminence commands a lot of respect in the members of District Bar Association Khanewal, therefore, the Advocates appearing on behalf of the petitioner feel hesitant to face him. He further adds that the father of respondent No.1 intends to appear in the witness box as special attorney of his daughter i.e. the plaintiff but the Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner is hesitant to cross-examine him, but I do not see eye to eye to him for, the case cannot be transferred simply on the said ground especially when the order sheet appended with this petition reveals that the suit filed by respondent No.1 has been lingering since 26-9-2008. It is also noteworthy that though respondent No.1 by instituting the said suit claimed the maintenance not only for herself but for her minor son as well but uptill now even the order of payment of interim maintenance has not been passed by the learned Judge Family Court, a fact which, tentatively speaking shows the fairness on the part of the learned Judge Family Court. Admittedly, from day one Rana Ahmad Farzand Ali Khan, an Advocate practising at Tehsil Courts Mian Channun, has been contesting the suit on behalf of the petitioner. Besides, every Advocate is supposed to watch the interest of his client vigilantly and showing any favour or latitude to the opposite party by a counsel amounts to professional misconduct, thus, having a soft corner in the heart of the petitioner's counsel for the father of respondent No.1 cannot be made a ground for transfer of the case. Besides it, after all somebody has to cross-examine the father of respondent No.1 as special attorney of his daughter even if the case is transferred to any other Court functioning out of District Khanewal, the petitioner will have to confront the said Advocate. Furthermore, considering the allegations levelled in paragraph No.3 sub-clause II of the petition, in hand, the acceptance of this application is likely to demoralize the learned Judge Family Court seized of the matter. To encourage such a tendency might result demoralizing subordinate judiciary. Besides, in case of acceptance of this application respondent No.1, who is a lady, is likely to face inconvenience, which obviously is against the spirit of law. The case-law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is differentiable and not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case, whereas, the case-law cited by the learned counsel for the respondents is fully applicable in this case.

Headnotes / Summary

Judgment & Decree