Appeal

BEFORE THE HON’BLE DISTRICT JUDGE, MULTAN.

Appeal No. _______________/2000 National Security Insurance Company Muhammad Ismail Aiwan-iScience, Ferozepur Road, Lahore, through Humayun Naseer Shaikh. Appellant/Defendant VERSUS Tariq Mehmood Hassan S/o Muhammad Rafiq Sabir, caste Butt, R/o Riaz Motors Building, Abdali Road, Multan. Respondent/Plaintiff APPEAL UNDER SECTION 96 CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 AGAINST JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 16.9.2000 PASSED BY MR. PERVEZ IQBAL SIPRA LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE 1ST CLASS, MULTAN WHEREBY THE CIVIL SUIT TITLED TARIQ MEHMOOD HASSAN VS. MIAN NASEER A. SHAIKH ETC. WAS DECREED RELIEF CLAIMED: TO ACCEPT THE APPEAL, SET ASIDE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.9.2000 AND THE SUIT OF RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF BE DISMISSED WITH COSTS. VALUE OF APPEAL: - RS. 1,735/- AS PER CIVIL SUIT.

Respectfully Sheweth: 1.

That respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,735/before the learned trial court which was dismissed by Mr. Muhammad Zubair Aziz Cheema, learned Civil Judge, 1st Class,

Multan vide judgment & decree dated 12.5.1999. Respondent/plaintiff preferred appeal against the judgment and decree of Civil Court which was accepted by Mr. Muhammad Saddique Tabassum, learned Additional District Judge, Multan vide judgment and decree dated 26.10.1999 and case was remanded to trial court for fresh decision after giving another opportunity of evidence to the parties. Both parties adduced evidence and learned trial court vide impugned judgment & decree dated 16.9.2000 decreed accepted the Civil Suit and in favour of plaintiff and against defendant, same was decreed with costs. Impugned judgment and decree dated 16.9.2000 learned trial court is against law and facts, therefore, liable to be set aside inter alia on the following: GROUNDS A)

That impugned judgment dated 16.9.2000 is against facts & law.

B)

That learned Trial Court did not appreciate law applicable in the case of respondent/plaintiff.

C)

That learned Trial Court relied upon the non-statutory rules, which have no force and on the basis of such rules, impugned judgment and decree is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

D)

That learned Trial Court on the same day dismissed the following three identical nature of Civil Suits having same facts and evidence: (i)

Muhamamd Saeed Vs. Mian Nasir A. Sheikh etc.

(ii)

Ghulam Rasool

(iii)

Rana Abdul Latif Vs. Mian Nasir A. Sheikh etc.

Vs. Mian Nasir A. Sheikh etc.

In the case of Civil Suit of respondent/plaintiff wherein impugned judgment and decree was delivered and above-titled three cases, facts and evidences are same and identical, therefore, different decision by accepting and decreeing the Civil Suit of respondent/plaintiff is illegal. Photo-copy of judgment in above cases is attached.

E)

That learned Trial Court allowed to be exhibited photo-state documents, despite the facts same were not relied in FARD PAISH KARDA/MUNHASRA, therefore, reading of such evidence by the Trial Court is illegal and on the basis of such evidence, impugned judgment and decree is nullity in the eye of law.

F)

That learned Trial Court decided issue No. 3 against facts and law.

G)

That learned Trial Court decided issue No. 4 against law and evidence available on the record.

H)

That the learned Trial Court decided issue No. 5 against law and evidence available on the record. Learned Trial Court gave findings on the aforesaid issue, which are totally wrong and contrary to evidence available on record.

I)

That learned Trial Court decided issue No. 6a against law and evidence available on the record.

J)

That learned Trial Court decided issue No. 6 against the appellant/defendant and in favour of respondent/plaintiff is against law and evidence available on the record. Learned Trial Court did not appreciate the law applicable in the respondent/ plaintiff’s case and also did not read over properly evidence available on the record, as such judgment is a result of nonreading of evidence.

K)

That impugned judgment is based on surmises and conjectures, therefore, not sustainable in the eyes of law.

L)

That learned Trial Court passed judgment for recovery of Rs. 17,25/- whereas decree has been issued for Rs. 1,735/-. It is important to mention here that learned Trial Court discussed the matter of gratuity in the respondent/plaintiff’s case, despite the fact it was not a subject matter of civil suit. It reveals that learned Trial Court passed a stereo-type judgment in all nine cases including respondent/plaintiff’s case which were decreed in favour of plaintiff and against defendant, as such impugned judgment is against law.

M)

That impugned judgment is the result of non-reading of evidence available on the record, therefore, same is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

N)

That respondent/plaintiff failed to produce any evidence regarding balance/credit of his leave, neither he got summon any such record of defendant, therefore, learned Trial Court illegally held that respondent/plaintiff is entitled to receive amount of leave encashment.

2.

That appeal is within time as per Limitation Act, 1908.

3.

That the value of appeal as per Civil Suit is Rs. 1,735/-, which is exempted from levy of court fee.

In view of the above, it is respectfully prayed that record of Trial Court in Civil Suit titled S.M. Asmatullah Vs. Mian Naseer A. Shaikh may kindly be summoned and above-titled appeal may very kindly be accepted and impugned judgment and decree dated 16.9.2000 passed by Mr. Pervez Iqbal Sipra learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Multan in Civil Suit titled S.M. Asmatullah Vs. Mian Naseer A. Shaikh etc. may very kindly be set aside and suit for recovery of respondent/plaintiff may very kindly be dismissed with costs. Any other relief which this Hon’ble court deems appropriate in the circumstances of the case may very kindly be awarded to the appellant in the interest of justice. Humble Appellant,

Through: MUHAMMAD AMIN MALIK Advocate High Court,

RIAZ-UL-HASSAN Advocate High Court,

38-Muhammadan Block, District Courts, Multan.

BEFORE THE HON’BLE DISTRICT JUDGE, MULTAN.

Appeal No. _______________/2000 National Security Insurance Company Limited Versus Muhammad Aslam Farooqui APPEAL U/S 96 C.P.C.

AFFIDAVIT of: Mian Humayun Nasir A. Sheikh S/o Mian Nasir A. Sheikh, caste Sheikh, Acting Chairman National Security Insurance Company Limited Awane Science, Ismail Building Ferozepur Road, Lahore.

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the above-titled appeal are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept concealed thereto. DEPONENT Verification: Verified on oath at ________, this ___day of November 2000 that the contents of abovementioned affidavit are true & correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. DEPONENT

IN THE COURT OF MUHAMMAD ARSHAD MALIK, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MULTAN.

Appeal No. _______________/2000 National Security Insurance Company Limited Versus Altaf Hussain APPEAL U/S 96 C.P.C. STAY APPLICATION.

AFFIDAVIT of: Mian Humayun Nasir A. Sheikh S/o Mian Nasir A. Sheikh, caste Sheikh, Acting Chairman National Security Insurance Company Limited Awane Science, Ismail Building Ferozepur Road, Lahore. I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the above-mentioned stay application in abovetitled appeal are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept concealed thereto. DEPONENT Verification: Verified on oath at ________, this ___day of ___________ 2000 that the contents of abovementioned affidavit are true & correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. DEPONENT

IN THE COURT OF MUHAMMAD ARSHAD MALIK, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MULTAN.

Appeal No. _______________/2000 National Security Insurance Company Limited PETITIONER/APPELLANT Vs Rana Abdul Hameed RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF

APPEAL U/S 96 OF C.P.C. 1908. APPLICATION UNDER O. XXXIX RULE 1,2 READ WITH S. 151 C.P.C. FOR AD-INTERIM INJUNCTION/SUSPENSION OF IMPUGNED JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 16.9.2000 PASSED BY LEARNED TRIAL COURT IN THE CASE OF RESPONDENT /PLAINTIFF.

Respectfully Sheweth: 1. That above-titled appeal is pending adjudication before this Hon’ble Court and is fixed for 2.12.2000 for preliminary arguments. Contents of above-titled appeal be read as integral part of this application. 2.

That prima facie petitioner/appellant has got a very good and arguable case and there are bright chances of acceptance of above-titled appeal on merits.

3.

That in case the judgment and decree dated 16.9.2000 passed by the learned trial court in the case of respondent/plaintiff is not stayed/suspended; petitioner/appellant will suffer an irreparable loss at the hands of respondent.

4.

That

balance

of

convenience

lies

in

favour

of

petitioner/appellant. Affidavit attached. In view of above, it is respectfully prayed that above-mentioned petition may very kindly be accepted and impugned judgment and decreed dated 16.9.2000 may very graciously be suspended till final disposal of the above-titled appeal. PETITIONER/APPELLANT Dated: ________

Through: MUHAMMAD AMIN MALIK Advocate High Court,

RIAZ-UL-HASSAN Advocate High Court,

38-Muhammadan Block, District Courts, Multan.