1987 PLP 2408 (CLC)

This application, under section 24 of the CPC has been filed by Mst. Naila Kaukab for transfer of a suit for recovery of gold ornaments weighing 15 tolas and Rs.5,000 cash or, in the alternate, recovery of Rs.25,000 filed by the respondent Dr. Muhammad Irtaza which is pending before Mr Khalid Saeed, Civil Judge, Lahore. The parties were married on 11‑3‑1983 at Faisalabad but their union could not last long and broke in consequence of a divorce pronounced upon her on 25‑6‑1984. They are now engaged in litigation with each other. She has filed a suit against the respondent for recovery of Rs.25.000 as the price of her dowry articles which is pending in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Faisalabad whereas the suit of the respondent is pending at Lahore. There are at least 9 notices present on the file which were successively issued on 14‑4‑1985; 14‑5‑1985; 18‑5‑1985; 6‑7‑1985: 19‑1‑1986;15‑6‑1986: 21‑10‑1986: 4‑11‑1986 and 13‑12‑1986 for service of the respondent who could not be personally served on their basis. Each time that the process‑server visited his premises, one or the other lady is reported to have come out to inform that he is not available there and has gone out temporarily. Each of the reports is supported by an affidavit sworn on the point by the process‑server who was consequently authorised in the last‑mentioned notice to effect his service by affixation. So has been done on 3‑2‑1987 but the respondent has not turned up. He appears to have been deliberately avoiding service and consequent liability to appear in this matter. Since proceedings in his own suit have been stayed already by the order dated 8‑5‑1985, therefore, there is, no reason to think that he may be unaware of this proceeding. It seems that he is not minded to contest it. Hence, it is heard ex parte against him.

2. The respective suits of the parties have consequented from rupture of their marital tie and deserve to be viewed not any differently from matrimonial cases. Applicant prays for transfer of the respondent's suit from Lahore to Faisalabad on the ground that it will not be convenient for her to attend to the litigation at two different stations. She has also expressed apprehension of having to suffer physical harm in going there to defend the suit. Since common questions of law and fact are likely to arise in the cases of the parties, therefore, for avoiding the possibility of conflict in their decisions, they deserve to be tried in one Court. Convenience of a lady‑litigant being the only determining factor in such cases, the suits of the parties should be determined by the Court at Faisalabad. Suit of the respondent is, therefore, withdrawn from the Court of Mr. Khalid Saeed, Civil Judge, Lahore and is entrusted to the Senior Civil Judge, Faisalabad, with whom her suit is already pending, so that the same may also be tried by him, if not consolidated with her suit, at least on the same dates, and both the suits are decided simultaneously.

3. Learned Judge at Lahore will forthwith remit the file of the relevant suit directly to the transferee Judge who will fix both the suits for date convenient to himself and proceed to try them ' as directed above. This application is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. S.Q./N‑52/1 Application allowed.