P L D 1972 Lahore 845 (PLP)

The consensus of judicial authority on the question of transfer of a case on the ground of convenience and expense is that ordinarily a plaintiff as arbiter lids has the right to choose his forum and the Court should be exceedingly reluctant to interfere with this right but if the defendant proves a prepon derance of convenience in his favour, transfer may be granted. Some expense is involved in all litigation, and the ground of expense is not sufficient. Thakur Narindra Bikram At Singh and another v. Thakurain Sheo Ratan Kaur A I R 1923 Oudh 30; Laxmikant and others v. Govindra and others A I R 1927 lag. 219; Inayat Ullah Khan v. Nisar Ahmad Khan AI R 1922 All. 65; Shiv Parshad v. Kanhaya Shah‑Ruchi Shah and another A I R 1920 Lah. 381; Roop Chand and others v. Gokul Chand and others A I R 1924 Lah. 249; Ruchi Ream Khattcr v. Sarab Narain Shah and another A I R 1928 Lah. 159; Edulji Dinshaw and another v. Dhanpat Mat Bhagwan Das A I R 1928 Lah. 183; Diwan Singh Maftum v. Arjan Shah Singh A I R 1930 Lah. 944; Firm of Shamussuddin Mahir Bux v. Firm of Ali Muhammad Alidina A I R 1914 Sind 1:47 and Madho Prasad v. Moti Chand A I R 1919 All. 397 ref. Mian Iqbal Hussain for Petitioners. M. A. Rehman for Respondent. Date of hearing: 25th October 1971. This petition under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been moved by Messrs Ever Shine Candle Industries of Lahore and 36 others for transfer of the suit for recovery of Rs. 1,50,000.00 as damages for defamation filed against them by the respondent in the civil Court at Rawalpindi. The grounds taken are that the petitioners‑defendants reside in Lahore and the alleged cause of action has also arisen at Lahore, where the alleged defamation was for the first time published and that in order to cause inconvenience and lot of expenditure to the petitioners the civil suit hag been filed mala fide at Rawalpindi. It is further averred that the notice for the defamation was served on the petitioners by a Lahore lawyer and the suit has also been filed at Rawalpindi by a Lahore lawyer, indicating that parties' convenience would be promoted by the transfer.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, as already stated above, maintains the petition mainly on the ground of convenience of the petitioners and expense likely to be incurred by them in defending the suit at Rawalpindi. He has relied on Thakur Narindra Bikram Jit Singh and another v. Thakurain Sheo Raton Kaur (A I R 1923 Oudh 30), wherein it was held that if the defendants can show a clear balance of advantage in the way of convenience and expense they are entitled to have the case transferred. To the same effect are Laxmikant and others v. Govindra and others (A I R 1927 Nag. 219) and Inayat Ullah Khan v. Nisar Ahmad Khan (A I R 1922 All. 65), to which reference has been made on behalf of the petitioners. The petition has been contested by the respondent. It has been argued that a plaintiff should not without sufficient cause be deprived of the right given him by law to select the Court in which he would sue. It is maintained that mere balance of convenience would not be a sufficient ground for transfer, unless it is proved that the expense and difficulties of the trial would be so great as to lead to injustice or the forum was deliberately chosen for the purpose of working injustice, according to the leaned counsel the natural choice of forum has been made and the hearing of the suit at Rawalpindi would not make things difficult or expensive. It has been further argued that the plaintiff has to produce his entire evidence from Rawalpindi where he resides and where in his official and social circles he has been defamed and, therefore, there is no convincing reason to transfer the case from Rawalpindi to Lahore. In support of his conten tion, he has referred to a large number of decisions, namely, Shiv Parshad v. Kanhaya Shah‑Ruchi Shah and another (A I R 1920 Lah. 381), Roop Chand and others v. Gokul Chand and others (A I R 1924 Lah. 249), Ruchi Ram Khattar v. Sarab Narain Shah and another (A I R 1928 Lah. 159). Edulji Dinshaw and another v. Dhanpat Mal Rhagwan Das (A I R 1928 Lah. 183), Diwan Singh Maftum v. Arjan Shah Singh (A I R 1930 Lah. 944), Firm of Shamussuddin Mahir Bux v. Firm of Ali Mohomed Alidina (A I R 1914 Sind 147) and Madho Prasad v. Moti Chand (A I R 1919 All. 397). The consensus of judicial authority on the question of transfer of a case on the ground of convenience and expense is that ordinarily a plaintiff as arbiter litis has the right to choose his forum and the Court should be exceedingly reluctant to interfere with this right but if the defendant proves a preponderance of convenience in his favour, transfer may be granted. In the instant case, although the petitioners‑defendants belong to Lahore yet this does not necessarily mean that in defending the suit at Rawalpindi it will be necessary for all of them to visit that town, because they can very well prosecute the case at Rawalpindi through counsel and if in order to defend the suit against them they have to produce evidence the same can be examined either in Court or on commission in accordance with law and expense may be curtailed in that manner. Be that as it may, a, some expense is involved in all litigation, the ground of expense does not advance the case of the petitioners. Even the question of convenience when compared with that of the plaintiff respondent does not preponderate. Further, if he respondent has brought the suit for defamation against the petitioners out of malice, as alleged, the petitioners can be compensated by awarding special costs in accordance with law. For the reasons above, I am not persuaded to transfer the case from the Court of competent jurisdiction. The petition fails arid is dismissed. There will be :o order as to costs. K. B. A. Petition dismissed.