1991 PLP 1204 (CLC)

This judgment shall dispose of the instant transfer application, namely, T.A. No.556‑C of 1990 as well as Transfer Applications Nos. 557‑C and 558‑C of 1990.

2. These transfer applications have been made for the transfer of the three suits brought against the petitioner, Muhammad Riaz Chughtai, by Sur. Allah Bachaya, Zia Alain and Muhammad Aslam at Bahawalpur, Bahawalnagar and Faisalabad respectively, for recovery of different sums of money.

3. The petitioner's plea is that the petitioner's daughter, Mst. Humaira Chughtai married Haroon Rashid son of Mushtaq Ahmad. Their marriage has come to an end. There is also a decree for recovery of Rs.1,36,000 in favour of Mst. Humaira Chughtai and against Haroon Rashid and the same has since attained finality. According to the petitioner, the said Mushtaq Ahmad got the above suits instituted by three persons with a view to troubling the petitioner. The plaintiffs in the said suits are said to be the customers of Mushtaq Ahmad who is running a hardware shop.

4. Earlier, applications for the transfer of the said suits, riled by the petitioner, were dismissed by me on 29th May, 1990. Thereafter, the applications, mentioned at the outset, were made by him stating new grounds for transfer of the suits.

5. One of the pleas raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that Haroon Rashid made an application before the Arbitration Council of Union Committee No.100, Lahore City, seeking permission for second marriage. Haroon Rashid appointed Muhammad Razzaq as his arbitrator for the said council. Council filed a report on 19th September, 1990 containing recitals to the following effect:‑ The said report was signed by the representative of Haroon Rashid, namel5, Muhammad Razzaq as well. It was maintained by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the above recitals it was admitted by Mushtaq Ahmad that he managed the institution of the suits sought to be transferred. He, therefore, prayed that the, Suits may be transferred to Lahore where the petitioner is presently residing. On the other hand, it was submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that Haroon Rashid had withdrawn his application for permission to marry for the second time, before the said report was filed by the Arbitration Council and thus there was no occasion for the making of the report in question. In reply, it was pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that application for withdrawal of his application for contracting second marriage was withdrawn by the petitioner on 20th September, 1991, perhaps, in view of the report submitted by the arbitrators and thus the withdrawal of application was of little avail to the respondents. As against this, the averment of learned counsel for the respondents was that the application was made on 19th September, 1991 and in view thereof the Arbitration Council should not have made the report relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner. Looking at the above contentions regarding withdrawal of the application, original record of the Union Committee concerned was requisitioned and the same has been perused by me today.

6. The said original record reveals that the withdrawal application is dated the 19th September, 1991 but it was handed over to the Chairman of the Union Committee on 20th September, 1991. This demonstrates that the report of the Arbitration Committee had been submitted before the withdrawal application was handed over to the Chairman. It was thus an afterthought and the petitioner cannot be debarred from taking benefit of the report submitted by the Arbitration Council.

7. As indicated above according to the report of the Arbitration Council it was admitted by Mushtaq Ahmad that he was responsible for the riling of the suits by Sufi Allah Bachaya, Zia Alam and Muhammad Aslam. It is not denied that he had business terms with Mushtaq Ahmed. The tenor of the statement made by Mushtaq Ahmad before the Arbitration Council shows that Mushtaq Ahmad got the suits filed with a view to causing harassment to the petitioner. This development had taken place after the dismissal of the earlier applications made by the petitioner for transfer of the suits. The dismissal of his earlier applications is therefore, no bar to the acceptance of the applications in hand.

8. In view of what has gone above, I am convinced that the suits sought to be transferred were got instituted by Mushtaq Ahmad with a view to causing unnecessary bother and expense to the petitioner. 1, therefore, accept all the transfer applications mentioned at the outset and transfer the suits mentioned earlier, from the Courts, which are seized of the suits, to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Lahore.

9. The transfer applications mentioned above are, accordingly, accepted. However, there shall be no order as to costs. H.B.T./M‑2744/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Transfer applications accepted.