' By this judgment, I propose to dispose of the following transfer petitions, as common questions are involved in all the four:-
(1) T.A. No. 261/C of 1982 Syed Izhar Ahmad Gilani v. Malik Muhammad Akram and another.
(2) T.A. No. 262/C of 1982 Ehsan Ullah Khan v. Malik Muhammad Aslam and another.
(3) T.A. No. 263/C of 1982 Ehsan Ullah Khan v. Malik Muhammad Akram and another.
(4) T.A. No. 265/C of 1982 Syed Izhar Ahmad Gilani v. Malik Muhammad Aslam and another.
2. The facts necessary for the purposes of these petitions, briefly stated, are as under:- ' That the respondents in the two petitions, namely, Malik Muhammad Akram and Malik Muhammad Aslam are real brothers and partners, of a firm styled Malik Tractor House, Kutchery Road, Sargodha. Their business inter alia consists of dealership of Millat Tractors Limited, Lahore.
The petitioners in the above four transfer petitions, namely, Mr. Ehsan Ullah Khan and Syed Izhar Ahmad Gilani are respectively the Managing Director and Deputy Manager Sales, Millat Tractors Limited, Lahore-Sheikhupura Road, Lahore. The respondent Malik Muhammad Akram has filed two suits respectively against Syed lzhar Ahmad Gilani and Mr. Ehsan Ullah Khan each for recovery of Rs.24,000 as damages which are pending in the Court of Agha Inam-ur-Rahim, Civil Judge, Sargodha, and Mr. Muhammad Aslam Bhatti, Civil Judge, Sargodha, and are the subject-matter of T.A. No. 261/C of 1982 and T.A. No. 263/C of 1982. Similarly, Malik Muhammad Aslam respondent has instituted two suits respectively against Mr. Ehsan Ullah Khan and Syed Izhar Ahmad Gilani each for recovery of Rs.24,000 as damages which are pending in the Court of Agha Inam-ur-Rahim, Civil Judge, Sargodha, and Mr. Muhammad Aslam Bhatti, Civil Judge, Sargodha, and are the subject- matter of T.A. No. 262/C of 1982 and T.A. No. 265/C of 1982. All these four suits are sought to be transferred to some Court of competent jurisdiction either at Lahore or at Ferozewala.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the contesting respondents in these four petitions, namely, Messrs Malik Muhammad Akram and Malik Muhammad Aslam are very influential persons and are of desperate character and the petitioners apprehend bodily harm if they go to Sargodha, the home town of the respondents, for contesting the cases filed against them there. In support of the above, the learned counsel for the petitioners placed on record a copy of the letter, dated 12-9-1977 to show that the said respondents did not even hesitate to abuse the officers of Millat Tractors Limited in the factory premises of petitioners regarding which they showed regrets later and undertook to be more careful in future. In the context of this submission, the learned counsel further submitted that the respondents have extended threats also to the petitioners that they will face serious consequences when they come to Sargodha in the cases sought to be transferred and that the petitioners are mortally afraid of them.
4. The next contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that since there are cases pending between the parties regarding the dealership before the civil Courts at Ferozewala, these cases should also be transferred to the said civil Court.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents submitted that the apprehension of bodily harm and the alleged threats by the respondents to the petitioners are only imaginary and that the respondents having apologized about the incident in the factory by itself shows that they have no intertion of causing harm to the petitioners.
6. The only other contention of the learned counsel for the contesting respondents is that the factory of the petitioners is situated very near Ferozewala and that the respondents also apprehend bodily harm to them at the hands of the petitioners if they come to pursue their cases at Ferozewala. The learned counsel also submitted that if the case have to be transferred, they should better be sent to some other district.
7. Having given consideration to the controversy involved I find that each of the parties has shown apprehension of bodily harm at the hands of the other; the petitioners being afraid of going to the home town of the respondents whilst the respondents apprehend harm from the petitioners if they come to Ferozewala which is near the factory of Millat Tractors Limited, of which factory the petitioners are the officers. In these circumstances, it would be more appropriate that the cases are entrusted to a Court in a District other than the Districts of Sargodha and Sheikhupura where a just and fair trial of the cases could be conducted. The nearest District which will be conveniently placed to the parties is Faisalabad.
8. In view of the foregoing, accepting all the four petitions, I direct that the suits in question be withdrawn from the civil Courts at Sargodha and entrusted to civil Courts of competent jurisdiction at Faisalabad.
9. Accordingly, the suit for recovery of Rs.24,000 titled Malik Muhammad Akram v. Syed lzhar Ahmad Gilani shall be withdrawn from the Court of Agha Inam-ur-Rahim, Civil Judge, Sargodha, and entrusted to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Faisalabad to be nominated by the learned District Judge, Faisalabad, for adjudication in accordance with law. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
10. The parties shall appear before the learned District Judge, Faisalabad, on 10-4-1983.
11. The Court from which the case has been withdrawn shall ensure that the record of the case reaches the Court of the learned District Judge, Faisalabad, before the date fixed above. The learned District Judge while entrusting the case to some Court of competent jurisdiction at Faisalabad shall also fix the date for appearance of the parties before the transferee Court.