' This judgment shall dispose of the transfer application in hand, namely, Transfer Application No, 296-C of 1989 as well as Transfer Applications Nos. 297-C, 298-C, 299-C and 350-C of 1989.
2. These transfer applications relate to five suits filed against the applicant in the said applications namely, Muhammad Riaz Chughtai, for recovery of different sums. Out of the said suits, the suit of Zia Alam is at Bahawalnagar, the suit of Sufi Allah Bachaya is at Bahawalpur, the suit of Mohammad Ali is at Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura, and the suits separately filed by Muhammad Aslam and Abdul Razzaq are at Faisalabad. As indicated above, Muhammad Riaz Chughtai is applicant in all the transfer applications. He will hereinafter be referred to as the petitioner. He seeks transfer of all the suits to Lahore, where he is residing.
3. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's daughter, Mst. Humera Chughtai was married to one Haroon Rashid but differences having arisen between them, litigation is going on between them. According to the learned counsel the couple is involved in four cases pending at Lahore. They have also a minor son. One of the four cases between the couple relates to his maintenance. It was also pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier Mst.
Humera Chughtai obtained a decree against her husband for recovery of maintenance at the rate of Rs,4,000 per mensem for herself. According to him it was on account of the said decree that Mushtaq Ahmad, who is father of the said Haroon Rashid, has arranged institution of the said five suits against the petitioner, by different persons, at different places, with a view to causing harassm ent to him (petitioner).
4. When I asked learned counsel for the petitioner as to how the plaintiffs in the said suits have agreed to join hands with the father of Haroon Rashid in bringing the suits, his reply was that one of the plaintiffs, namely, Zia Alam is father of Khawar Hussain who is married to the sister of Haroon Rashid. He could not indicate any link between the other plaintiffs and the father of Haroon Rashid except that his (Haroon Rashid's) father is running a hardware shop and the plaintiffs in the said suits are his customers. His plea is that the petitioner would be put to a lot of bother and expense if he is obliged to defend the suits at the places where they are now pending. He, therefore, seeks transfer of all the suits to Lahore.
5. Ch. Azmat Khan, learned counsel for Zia Alam, submits that Zia Alam is not only related to Mushtaq Ahmad, the father of Haroon. Rashid, but also to the petitioner. He has also pointed out that the petitioner too is having a hardware shop and if the running of such a shop could be exploited by Mushtaq Ahmad for institution of the said suits, the petitioner could also follow suit. His submission is that the suit of Zia Alam is genuine and since the transaction involved therein took place at Bahawalnagar, he was well advised to bring the suit there. Another argument raised by him is that if the suit of Zia Alam is transferred to Lahore it would not only cause inconvenience to Zia Alam but also to the witnesses to be examined by him because they all live in the district of Bahawalnagar.
6. Mirza Khalid Shafiq Baig, learned counsel for Sufi Allah Bachaya, who is one of the plaintiffs in the said suits, maintains that Sufi Allah Bachaya has nothing to do with the petitioner or the said Mushtaq Ahmad. He has also endorsed the arguments raised by learned counsel for Zia Alam other than the one relating to his relationship with said Mushtaq Ahmad. Same is the case of Ch. Barkat Ali learned counsel for Abdul Razzaq, who is one of the plaintiffs in the suits referred to above.
7. It was conceded by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is nothing common in the said five suits. They relate to different transactions. Whether these transactions are genuine or not will be determined by the Courts which are seized of the suits. I quite appreciate the argument that if the suits are transferred to Lahore it will not only trouble the plaintiffs therein but also the witnesses who are to be examined by the plaintiffs. Obviously, plaintiffs in the A suits would be burdened with additional expenses if the suits are transferred to Lahore. To my mind, there is no justification for obliging the plaintiffs to prosecute their suits at Lahore where the petitioner is residing. Position of the suit pending at Ferozewala is different from that of other suits because Ferozewala is very close to Lahore. The petitioner would, therefore, have little difficulty in defending the suit at Ferozewala. In this view of the matter, transfer of the suit from Ferozewala to Lahore would be an unnecessary, if not a futile, exercise.
8. For the reasons given above, I am not inclined to transfer any of the suits sought to be transferred by means of transfer applications mentioned at the outset and dismiss all these applications, with no order as to costs.
Transfer .