2006 PLP 59 (YLR)

CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.

The brief facts out of which the present petition arises are that the petitioner and respondent solemnized marriage on 2-7-2000 at Lahore in accordance with Injunctions of Islam. Subsequently, the relationship between the petitioner and respondent became strained. The respondent delegated the right of divorce to the petitioner. The petitioner sent a notice to the respondent through the Chairman Arbitration Council Cantonment Board, Lahore Cantt. The divorce was effective on 29-11-2004. The respondent has filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioner in a counter-blast in the Court of Mr. Tahir Abbas Sipra, Civil Judge/Magistrate, Rawalpindi. The petitioner being aggrieved filed this application for transfer of the suit filed against the petitioner by the respondent titled "Muhammad Ali son of Muhammad Afzal v. Mst. Shaheen daughter of Muhammad Yasin" which is pending in the Court of Mr. Tahir Abbas Sipra, Civil Judge/Magistrate, Rawalpindi, on the ground that respondent has filed the aforesaid suit against the petitioner as a counter-blast.

2. The case was fixed before this Court on 7-12-2004. Office was directed to fix this case on 12-1-2005 after notice to the respondent at the expense of the petitioner by the following modes:

(i) Directly; (ii) Through the agency of Senior Civil Judge concerned; (iii) Through registered A.D. The proceedings in the suit "Muhammad Ali son of Muhammad Afzal v. Mst. Shaheen daughter of Muhammad Yasin" pending in the Court of Mr. Tahir Abbas Sipra, Civil Judge/Magistrate, Rawalpindi, were stayed till the said date. The case was fixed on 12-1-2005, Malik Akhtar Hussain Awan, Advocate appeared and got adjournment on the ground that he had received the telephonic message from the respondent to appear in this case, which was allowed. Malik Akhtar Hussain Awan, Advocate was directed to file power of attorney and reply of the petition within fortnight with advance copy to the learned counsel of the petitioner. Thereafter the case was fixed on 1-3-2005; office was directed to fix the case after notice to the respondent directly as well as through the agency of the Senior Civil Judge concerned for 31-3-2005. The restraining order shall remain in the field till the aforesaid date with the same conditions. Thereafter the case was fixed on 18-5-2005. The aforesaid facts were highlighted in order dated 18-5-2005 and office was directed to fix this case after notice to the respondent in terms of the modes prescribed in order dated 18-5-2005 for 16-6-2005. Office sent notice to the respondent on 28-6-2005 for 6-9-2005. Despite notice nobody entered appearance on behalf of the respondent. The proceedings in the suit of the respondent have already been stayed in view of the order dated 7-12-2004, which was extended off and on as is depicted from the order sheet of this Court with regard to staying of the proceedings must be in the knowledge of the respondent, copy of the same would have come on the file of his suit; therefore, I have no other alternative except to pass ex parte order against the respondent. Despite repeated calls he did not enter appearance. This fact shows that respondent is not interested to oppose this application.

3. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the respondent has filed the suit in question against the petitioner mala fide simply to harass the petitioner. In spite of the service, he did not enter appearance before this Court as is evident from the order sheet. She further submits that convenience of the lady be given due weight as compared to the men.

4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contents of the learned counsel of the petitioner and perused the record.

5. It is settled proposition of law that superior Courts will give due weight benefit to the inconvenience of the ladies as compared to the men as per law laid down by this Court in T.A. No.324/C of 2004 vide order dated 7-9-2004 after considering all the case-law on the subject. For the reasons recorded in the said order of this Court, this application is allowed as prayed for. Therefore, I would direct that the suit filed by respondent titled "Muhammad Ali son of Muhammad Afzal v. Mst. Shaheen daughter of Muhammad Yasin" suit for declaration and permanent injunction, which is pending in the Court of Mr. Tahir Abbas Sipra, Civil Judge/Magistrate, Rawalpindi, be withdrawn from the said Court and entrust to the Senior Civil Judge, Lahore, who is directed to entrust the same to the competent Court, Civil Judge/ Magistrate, Lahore, who is directed to proceed in the matter after notice to the plaintiff. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Senior Civil Judge, Lahore on 17-10-2005. With these observations the application is accepted. Copy Dasti on payment of usual charges. H.B.T./S-449/L Application allowed.