1987 PLP 662 (CLC)

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends, firstly, that the petitioner who is a lady will be put to greater inconvenience if she is made to go all the way to Multan to defend herself there whereas the respondent will suffer no inconvenience if his suit is transferred to Faisalabad as he is already defending himself in the three suits filed by the petitioner against him and has also not sought transfer of those three cases.

3. Secondly, that the suits of the petitioner against the respondent are earlier in time and the respondent has filed the suit only to cause harassment to the petitioner.

4. Thirdly, that the petitioner apprehends bodily harm at the hands of the respondent if she goes to Multan, and lastly, that the common questions of law and facts are likely to be involved in the suits between the parties and therefore, in order to avoid conflict of judgments, it will be in the interest of justice that the suits are tried by one and the same Court. In the same context, the learned counsel requests for entrustment of the petitioners three suits also to one Court at Faisalabad.

5. In reply the learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the parties, in fact, belong to Jhang and that~the petitioner only 1987 Fatte v. Haq Nawaz (Mahboob Ahmad, J) to avail of the institution of the suit at Faisalabad has asserted that she is living with her brother at Faisalabad. It is, however, conceded that the brother of the petitioner is living at Faisalabad.

6. Some documents have been filed by the petitioner as well as by the respondent to support their respective assertions of residence of the petitioner. These documents will not be of any relevance at this stage as the controversy involved presently would be whether the petitioner has valid reasons to live at Faisalabad. It being the admitted position that her brother is residing at Faisalabad where he owns a house as well there appears no impediment in the way of the petitioner in living with her brother and filing suits at Faisalabad. This being also the position borne and established on record that the suits of the petitioner are earlier in time it will be just and convenient not only for the petitioner, but also for the respondent to have adjudication of all the cases between the parties at one place and before one Court.

7. In view of the foregoing, I would allow this petition and direct that the suit for restitution of conjugal rights titled Haq Nawaz v. Mst. Fatte be withdrawn from the Court of Ch. Ashfaq Ahmad, Judge Family Court, Multan and entrusted to the Court of Mr. Arshad Iqbal, Judge Family Court Faisalabad before whom the petitioner's case for dissolution of marriage is pending.

8. I would also direct that the suits for maintenance and recovery of dower filed by the petitioner against the respondent which are respectively pending in the Court of Mr. Abdul Hamid, Judge Family Court, Faisalabad and Syed Sultan Ahmad, Judge Family Court, Faisalabad also be withdrawn from those Courts and entrusted to the Court of Mr. Arshad Iqbal, Judge Family Court, Faisalabad.

9. In the attendant circumstances, there will be no order as to costs

10. The Court at Multan from which the suit has been withdrawn shall ensure that the record of the case reaches the transferee Court (Court of Mr. Arshad Iqbal, Judge Family Court, Faisalabad) before 8‑12‑1986. The parties shall appear before the transferee Court in the suit for restitution of conjugal rights on 8‑12‑1986.

11. The two Courts at Faisalabad from which the suits for maintenance and recovery of dower filed by the petitioner against the respondent have been withdrawn shall also transmit the record of the respective cases to the Court of Mr. Arshad lqbal, Judge Family Court, Faisalabad before 8‑12‑1986.

12. The transferee Court is directed to fix all the four cases between the parties on the same dates of hearing so that the respondent is not put to any extra inconvenience. H.B.T./719/L Suit transferred