' By this judgment, I propose to dispose of T.A. No,3-C of 1999 titled Mst. Tahira Yasmin v. Ghulam Mustafa and T.A. No,10-C of 1999 titled Ghulam Mustafa v. Mst. Tahira Yasmin.
2. The petitioner in T.A. No,3-C of 1999 seeks transfer of suit for declaration and permanent injunction from the Court of Civil Judge at Rawalpindi to Chakwal where her suit for recovery of dowry articles against respondent No,1 is pending, whereas the respondent No,1 (petitioner in T.A.
No,10-C of 1999) has sought transfer of suit filed by the petitioner for recovery of dowry articles from Chakwal to Rawalpindi where his suit against the petitioner is pending.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner is a permanent resident of Chakwal where the marriage was solemnized between her andrespondent and, therefore, she has suit for recovery of dowry at Chakwal, whereas respondent No,1 with a view to defeat the suit of the petitioner has filed a counter-suit at Rawalpindi.
4. The learned counsel for respondent No,1 (petitioner in T.A. No,10-C of 1999) has contended that the suit of the respondent was tiled before the suit of the petitioner and therefore, the propriety demands that the suit of the petitioner should be transferred to Rawalpindi to be heard alongwith the suit of the respondent No,1.
5. The learned counsel for the parties, with reference to case-law in support of their respective contentions opposed the prayer of each other. Undoubtedly Mst. Tahira Yasmin is a permanent resident of Chakwal and marriage between the parties was also solemnized at Chakwal, therefore, in the given circumstances the preference will be given to the convenience of the petitioner and not to respondent who has not given any convincing reasons for the transfer of petitioner's suit to Rawalpindi. Since both the suits involve same dispute with counter-version, I, therefore, allow the transfer application (T.A. No,3-C of 1999) filed by Mst. Tahira Yasmin and direct that the suit filed by respondent No,1 at Rawalpindi should be transferred to Chakwal to be heard alongwith the suit of the petitioner. The T.A. No,10-C of 1999 is dismissed.
Suit transferred accordingly.