' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 186-A, 187(1) and 184(3) of the Constitution read with Order XXXIII, Rules 5 and 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 for seeking relief from this Court.
2. The factual background prompting this petition is that the husband of the petitioner i,e., respondent No, 1 instituted on 2-1-1993 at Peshawar a claim for restitution of conjugal rights against her. On 15-2-1993 he filed another claim before the Judge, Family Court Peshawar seeking custody of the minor children. The petitioner instituted a suit in the Family Court at Lahore on 21-3-1993 claiming dissolution of her marriage. She instituted another suit on the same date in the Family Court, Lahore claiming dower.
3. The petitioner has apart from inconvenience pleaded a threat to her life if she goes and prosecutes the cases at Peshawar. She, therefore, sought the consolidation and the transfer of all the suits in one Court so that the conflict of judgment does ndt take place and the parties get a comprehensive judgment from one Court on all the issues which have to be resolved in these pending matters,
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner is aware of the limitations which are Constitutional in nature and have been considered in decisions of this Court in Raja Humayun Khan v. Habib Bank Ltd. (1986 SCMR 78(2)), Mst. Zubaida Begum v. Nathey Khan (1987 SCMR 1934) and Rashad Iqbal v.
Mst. Muniza Begum (PLD 1987 Lahore 331). All the same, the learned counsel wants that this Court should have a second look at the issues arising in the case and should give a purposive interpretation and an extended meaning to Article 186-A of the Constitution read with the other provisions of the Constitution and the Supreme Court Rules referred to by him with a view to afford a necessary relief to parties so affected. He has for such a progressive, purposive and remedial interpretation referred to Lt.-Col. Nawabzada Muhammad Amir Khan v. The Controller of Estate Duty and others (PLD 1961 SC 119), Muhammad Ismail and others v. The State (PLD 1969 SC 241), Mst Fazal Jan v. Roshan Din and 2 others (PLD 1990 SC 661), Mastak v. Lal and Others (PLD 1991 SC 344) and Hasham Khan v. The State (PLD 1991 SC 567). He has also referred to a learned discourse printed in PLD 1991 Jour.
6.
5. Our Constitution embodies and gives effect to a scheme of a Federation. Earlier there was no provision comparable to Article 186-A of the Constitution. This provision was introduced for the first time by the Revival of the Constitution of 1973 Order, 1985 (President's Order 14 of 1985). This Article empowers and enables the Supreme Court to transfer any case, appeal or other proceedings pending before any High Court to any other High Court. It is not possible to give to the expression "pending before" the meaning of "pending within the jurisdiction of, without violence to the intention of the law-maker, to the language of the law and the scheme of Federation.
6. No case is made out. Hence, the petition is dismissed in limine.