1. ' This transfer application has been filed for transfer of Family Suit No,11 of 2002 from the Court of learned Civil and Family Judge, Sanghar. The grounds for getting the matter transferred are that the learned Judge was nourishing malice against the applicant and further that the respondent No,1 was not residing within, the jurisdiction of trial Court.
2. ' The arguments have been heard.
3. ' It was mainly contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in spite of the fact that vide order, dated 21-9-2002 learned Civil and Family Judge decided to frame an specific issue on the point of territorial jurisdiction of the Court, yet while framing issues on 16-11-2002 this issue was omitted, intentionally which displayed malice in the mind of the Judge.
4. ' It was vehemently contended that the justice should not only be done, but it should seem to have been done. Learned counsel in support of above rule cited number of authorities.
5. ' Conversely, it was contended on behalf of private respondent that the issue with regard to determination of territorial jurisdiction was subsequently framed by the trial Court and that no prejudice was caused to the applicant. It was further argued that the applicant had been using delaying tactics with the result that the case was not proceeding though as a matter of principle the family matters are to be disposed of expeditiously.
6. ' The arguments rendered on behalf of the parties have been given due consideration.
7. 'Admittedly, the issue with regard to territorial jurisdiction of the Family Court was framed subsequently thus, no prejudice was caused to the applicant. According to the chronology of the case the. Respondent No,1 filed a suit for dissolution of marriage on 7-5-20n2. After filing of the written statement by the defendant issues were framed on 11-11-2002, which were amended on 11- 12-2002 subsequently, the matter was being adjourned on the request of the counsel for the applicant/defendant. The side of the plaintiff after recording her evidence was closed on 17-7- 2003. Previously a Civil Transfer Application was filed before this Court on 13-5-2003 which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 15-9-2003, the present application was filed on 24-9-2003 and had been pending at Katcha Peshi stage since then. Merely because the trial Court omitted to frame issue of territorial jurisdiction in the first instance, would by itself be no ground to infer that the trial Judge was nourishing grudge or malice to his mind against the applicant/defendant.
8. There are glaringly evident and strong reasons to believe that the applicant has been making all attempts at his command to protract the proceedings. The instant transfer application has also been moved in furtherance of the same object and adequately demonstrates propensity on the part of the applicant to get the trial prolonged. It is quite dismaying to note that whenever a serious attempt is made to expedite disposal of a case, either of the effected parties try their best to create hurdles under the garb of concocted pleas of law to get it delayed. It hardly needs to be emphasized that he who seeks equity must D demonstrate equity. No litigant could be allowed to linger on the proceedings by making farcical cries of justice being done to be manifestly seen without showing that his own conduct was bona fide. The practice of achieving benefits out of one's own wrong in no case, could be allowed. The transfer application having been filed with ulterior motives and devoid of substance is dismissed. Trial Court is directed to dispose of the case without any further delay.
9. Transfer .