' The petitioner initiated proceedings under section 23 of the Divorce Act, 1869 (IV of 1869) against the respondent for judicial separation in a Civil Court at Lahore. The respondent also instituted suit for restitution of conjugal rights against the petitioner in the Civil Court at Shakargarh. The petitioner has moved this Court under section 24, C.P.C. for the transfer of the respondent's suit to Lahore so as to be tried by the same Court in which her application is pending. It is contended that since common questions of fact and law are likely to arise in the aforementioned proceedings, it would be expedient and in the interest of justice that the same are disposed of by one Court. It would also eliminate the possibility of conflicting decision being given by the Courts if the proceedings are disposed of by two different Courts. According to the petitioner, it would be inconvenient for her to go to Shakargarh to defend the suit instituted by the respondent.
2. The respondent has opposed the petitioner's application. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has contended that the Civil Court at Lahore has no jurisdiction to entertain the petitioner's application, as the parties have never resided within the territorial jurisdiction of the said Court. According to section 23 of the Divorce Act read with section 3 (2), it is only the Court of Civil Judge within the local limits of whose ordinary jurisdiction the husband and wife reside or last resided together, which has jurisdiction to entertain an application for judicial separation.
3. The main object of filing the present petition by the petitioner is that the two proceedings arising out of the matrimonial disputes between the parties should be disposed of together by one Court so that there may not be any conflicting decisions on the same issues of fact and law, if the proceedings are disposed of by two different Courts. This object is, however, not likely to be achieved if the respondent's suit is withdrawn from the Civil Court at Shakargarh and entrusted to the same Court which is seized of the petitioner's application under section 23 of the Divorce Act, because in case the respondent's objection as to the territorial jurisdiction of the Civil Court at Lahore to entertain the petitioner's aforementioned application is upheld, her application would be returned to her for presentation to the proper Court and the same problem, with which the petitioner is presently confronted, would arise, as the respondent's suit for restitution of conjugal rights would remain pending in the Court after the return of petitioner's application. The only appropriate course, therefore, seems to be that the objection regarding territorial jurisdiction, raised by the respondent in the petitioner's application under section 23 of the Divorce Act, should be disposed of first by the Civil Court at Lahore and the proceedings in the suit instituted by the respondent in the Civil Court at Shakargarh, should remain stayed meanwhile. The petitioner may move for the transfer of the respondent's suit to Lahore, if the respondent's objection against the territorial jurisdiction of the Civil Court at Lahore is disallowed. With these observations, the present application, moved by the petitioner, for the transfer of the respondent's suit pending in the Civil Court, Shakargarh, to the Civil Court at Lahore is disposed of.