' Mst. Shahnaz Bibi is wife of the respondent, Zulficiar Ali. She has made this petition for transfer of a suit for restitution of conjugal rights, brought against her, by the respondent. That suit is pending before the Senior Civil Judge, exercising powers of Judge, Family Court, Faisalabad. On the other hand, the petitioner has filed a suit for dissolution of marriage, against the respondent, which is being heard by Rao Akbar Ali, Judge, Family Court, Chichawatni, District Sahiwal. She has made this petition (T. A. 280/C of 1984) for transfer of the respondent's suit to the above Court at Chichawatni.
As against this, the respondent has made a separate petition (T. A. No, 264-C of 1984) for transfer of the petitioner's suit to the said Court at Faisalabad. (In this petition, the respondent has mentioned the petitioner as Shahnaz Begum). This order shall dispose of both the petitions.
2. In view of the nature of the two suits, common questions of law and fact are likely to arise therein and the evidence to be produced by the parties will also, to a great extent, be the same. Conflicting -findings on such questions can be avoided if both the suits are heard and decided by one and the same Court. Further, if the two suits are allowed to be heard by the Courts now seized of them, the petitioner will have to go too Faisalabad to defend the suit brought by the respondent and the latter will have to visit Chichawatni to resist the suit instituted by the former. It is, therefore, my desire that one of the parties should be saved of the bother and expense to which she/he would be put for going to a place other than the place of her/his residence to contest the suit against her/ him. Which of the two parties should be helped in this regard is the question which now falls for consideration. Since the petitioner is ,a female but the respondent is a male, and the petitioner claims to be a pardahnashin lady and apprehends trouble at the hands of the respondent in the event of her going to Faisalabad to defend the suit brought against her, I feel that she deserves to be accommodated in preference to the respondent. Her suit is also earlier in time. I am, therefore, inclined to transfer the respondent's suit to Chichawatni.
3. It was contended by learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner lived in Samundari, District Faisalabad, and not in Chichawatni, District Sahiwal, and, therefore; the Family Court at Chichawatni did. Not have territorial jurisdiction to try the suit instituted by her. Whether or not the petitioner ordinarily resides within the local limits of the Family Court of Chichawatni is a question of fact which, if raised before the said Court, will be judicially determined by it after recording the parties' evidence. In my humble opinion, it would not be proper for me to decide the question of jurisdiction in connection with the transfer application before me and in the absence of the parties evidence. I did not call upon the parties to produce evidence nor this is the stage for so, doing.
Expression of any opinion by me on the issue of territorial jurisdiction is likely to influence the decision of the learned Family Court on that question. I would, therefore, not like to say anything in the matter while disposing of the petition in hand. The view taken by me is support.. Ed by the case reported as Mst. Irshad Bibi v. Bashir Ahmad (1).
4. For the reasons enumerated earlier, it is a fit case for transfer of the respondent's suit from the Court of Family Judge (Senior Civil Judge), Faisalabad, to that of the said Family Court at Chichawatni. I, therefore, . The parties are left to bear their own costs.
(1) PLD 1978 Lah. 518