Asim Khan
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Asim Khan as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 2,800
- Pages: 15
In the Court of Mr. Yasir Hussain Khan, Civil Judge-III, Muzaffargarh.
Muhammad Asim Khan Vs. Kot Addu Power Co. through its General Manager and another
DECLARATORY SUIT & SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION. WRITTEN STATEMENT.
Preliminary Objections: Respectfully Sheweth: 1.
That the plaintiff having handed over the possession of the quarter on 12.5.2002, hence, has got no locus standi to file the present suit. The suit is barred by law & liable to be rejected.
2.
That the plaintiff has got no cause of action against the answering respondent as he handed over the possession of the quarter on expiry of one month notice period as per rules issued to him. Hence, the suit is liable to be rejected.
3.
That the plaintiff is estopped by his own conduct to file the instant suit. Hence, the suit is liable to be rejected.
4.
That the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands, hence, the suit is liable to be rejected.
5. That the contents of the suit are based on malafide and ulterior motive. Hence, the suit is liable to be rejected.
6. That the suit is frivolous and vexatious, hence, is liable to be rejected. 7. That this Hon’ble Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter as the plaintiff is a civil servant for the purpose of Services Tribunal Act; and the matter pertains to the terms and conditions of employment. 8. That most of the averments are beyond the scope of enquiry in a civil court as they relate to terms and conditions of service. 9. That the plaintiff was a licensee and under the terms of the allotment, could not retain the possession of the house beyond the terms as per rules. 10.That this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter and suit is not maintainable in its present form. 11.That the suit cannot proceed for non-joinder of necessary parties as the house was allotted to the person entitled to it and his rights are involved. 12.That the plaintiff is estopped to file this suit by his conduct. On facts: 1.
That the contents of para No. 1 are not denied, however it is pertinent to mention here that the plaintiff committed acts of misconduct, for which he was charge-sheeted, he submitted his reply to the charge-sheet which was found unsatisfactory and as a result of that, an Inquiry Committee was formed to enquire into the matter. The plaintiff participated in the enquiry proceedings along-with the witnesses, he admitted his guilt of committing acts of misconduct. He was issued a second show cause notice to which he replied, which was unsatisfactory. He was also given opportunity of personal hearing, but he failed to bring any cogent reason in his defence. And as a result, he was dismissed from the service.
2.
That in reply to para No. 2, it is submitted, as narrated above in para No. 1, the dismissal order passed by respondent No. 2 is legal and proper. Rest of the contents pertain to procedure
for filing the appeal before the Federal Services Tribunal as the plaintiff is a civil servant. 3.
That in reply to para No. 3, it is submitted that contents of this para relate to the procedure only, which he has adopted for seeking redressal of his grievance against the order of dismissal dated 12.4.2003.
4.
That the contents of para No. 4 are not admitted as narrated. It is submitted that after the dismissal, the plaintiff can retain the house for a period of one month from the date of his dismissal in the light of WAPDA rules as on 27.6.1996 protected for staff under the staff agreement signed on 27.6.1996 between the Govt. of Pakistan, WAPDA and Pakistan WAPDA Hydro-electric Central Labour Union. It is pertinent to mention here that the plaintiff was issued notice for vacation of the quarter, which expired on 12.5.2003 and thereafter, the plaintiff handed over the possession to the answering defendant, rest of para are not admitted correct.
5.
That in reply to para No. 5, it is submitted that plaintiff’s dismissal from service has attained finality and the plaintiff was rightly issued notice dated 18.4.2003 to vacate the quarter, because, as already submitted above, the dismissed employee can retain the quarter only for one month after his dimissal from service. So, the contents of para No. 5 are not admitted as correct, as a result, he vacated the house and himself handed over the possession.
6.
That para No. 6 is not admitted as correct. He was given notice and he himself handed over the possession of quarter on 12.5.2003 and the quarter was allotted to M/s Wackenhut on 14.5.2003.
7.
That para No. 7 is not admitted as correct.
8.
That para No. 8 is not admitted as correct. The plaintiff has got no cause of action at present to move the instant suit as he has already handed over the possession of the quarter.
9.
That para No. 9 of the suit is not admitted as the plaintiff does no more reside within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.
10.
That para No. 10 is legal, hence, no comments. Prayer clause of the suit is not admitted as narrated. The plaintiff has handed over the possession of the quarter to the answering defendant and as an after-thought, has filed the present suit, which is not based on law and facts. Hence, same is liable to be dismissed with special costs in the interest of justice. Humble Defendant,
Dated: _______ Through: RIAZ-UL-HASSAN, Advocate, 6-A, Ahsan Colony, Suraj Miani Road, Multan.
Verification: Verified on oath at Muzaffargarh on this ____ day of June, 2003 that all the contents of the above-titled written reply including preliminary objections 1 to 6 and on facts from para No. 1 to 7 are true to the best of my knowledge and para No. 8 to 10 and prayer are correct to my belief. Defendants
In the Court of Mr. Yasir Hussain Khan, Civil Judge-III, Muzaffargarh.
Muhammad Asim Khan Vs. Kot Addu Power Co. through its General Manager and another DECLARATORY SUIT & SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION. Application for temporary injunction. WRITTEN REPLY
Preliminary Objections: Respectfully Sheweth: 1.
That all the contents for grant of stay i.e. prima facie, balance of convenience and irreparable loss are missing, hence, this application is liable to rejected, conversely, balance of convenience and loss is in favour of respondents/defendants.
2.
That the application has become infructuous as possession is with the respondents/defendants authority.
3.
That the application is not at all maintainable as the applicant himself has handed over the possession of the quarter and now with malafide intention has filed the present application. He is estopped by his conduct.
On Facts: 1.
That para No. 1 is admitted. Reply to the instant application is being filed before this Hon’ble Court, the contents of which are not being reproduced for the purpose of brevity and the same may be read as part and parcel of this application.
2.
That in reply to para No. 2, it is submitted that the applicant was dismissed from service after adopting proper disciplinary procedure. Whereas other contents of para No. 2, they relate to the procedure for filing appeal before the Hon’ble Federal Services Tribunal. As regards plaintiff’s dismissal from service, it has attained finality and he is no more an employee of the company.
3.
That para No. 3 is not admitted correct. The applicant on expiry of one month notice period, handed over the possession of the quarter on 12.5.2003.
4.
That para No. 4 is not admitted correct. According to rules, he is bound to vacate the quarter in the period of one month from the dismissal, which he did; and handed over the possession to the defendant/respondent.
5.
That para No. 5 is incorrect. Balance of convenience does not lean in favour of the applicant as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a judgment 1989 S.C.M.R. 1855.
6.
That para No. 6 is incorrect.
7.
That para No. 7 is incorrect. The applicant is not likely to face any irreparable loss to the applicant as held in the above mentioned judgment.
8.
Counter affidavit is attached. In view of the above, it is prayed that this application may please be dismissed in the interest of justice with special costs. Humble Defendants,
Through: RIAZ-UL-HASSAN, Advocate, 6-A, Ahsan Colony, Suraj Miani Road, Multan.
In the Court of Mr. Yasir Hussain Khan, Civil Judge-III, Muzaffargarh.
Muhammad Asim Khan Vs. Kot Addu Power Co. through its General Manager DECLARATORY SUIT & SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION. Application for temporary injunction. WRITTEN REPLY ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS
Affidavit of: Muhammad Umair Khan, General Manager, Administration & Human Resources. I, the above-named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under: 1.
That the contents of reply to stay application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing is concealed.
2.
That the contents to reply to stay application may kindly be considered as part & parcel of this affidavit, which are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing is concealed.
3.
That the contents of affidavit are correct and nothing is concealed. DEPONENT
In the Court of Mr. Yasir Hussain Khan, Civil Judge-III, Muzaffargarh.
Muhammad Asim Khan Vs. Kot Addu Power Co. through its General Manager and another
DECLARATORY SUIT Application U/O-39, Rule 2(3) C.P.C. for Contempt of Court. WRITTEN REPLY.
Preliminary Objections: Respectfully Sheweth: 1. That the applicant having handed over the possession of the quarter voluntarily on 12.5.2002, on expiry of one month notice period as per rules issued to him. Hence, has got no cause of action and locus standi to file the present application. The application is barred by law & liable to be rejected 2. That the applicant is estopped by his own conduct to file the instant application. Hence, the applicant is liable to rejection. 3. That the applicant has not come to the court with clean hands, hence, the application is liable to be rejected. 4.
That this Hon’ble Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter as the applicant/plaintiff is a civil servant for the purpose of Services Tribunal Act; and the matter pertains to the terms and conditions of employment. Hence, the application is liable to rejection.
5.
That the answering respondents have not at all violated the orders of this Hon’ble Court, hence, this application is liable to be rejected.
On facts: 1.
That contents of para No. 1 are formal.
2.
That contents of para No. 2 are not denied.
3.
That contents of para No. 3 are not admitted as correct. However,
it
is
pertinent
to
mention
here
that
applicant/plaintiff filed a declaratory suit on 12.5.2003 and status quo was ordered to be observed by this Hon’ble Court on 19.5.03 and the answering respondents received the same after 19.5.03. Whereas the applicant/plaintiff himself vacated the quarter in dispute voluntarily in response to the notice issued to him for vacation of the quarter as per rules applicable to the respondent establishment. But with malafide intention and evil designs, the applicant/plaintiff having concealing all the material facts, filed a suit and present application in this Hon’ble Court. In fact, the answering respondents have never violated the directions of this Hon’ble Court. The answering respondents are responsible persons. They cannot even think to take law in their own hands, because they are law-abiding officials. It is also worthmentioning here that the applicant has not brought the socalled occurrence in the notice of high-ups of the answering respondents. Even otherwise, the applicant/plaintiff has not moved to the concerned quarters of criminal jurisdiction. This shows clearly, malafide on the part of the applicant/plaintiff. The fact remains that after the dismissal from service and pursuance of notice of vacation. The applicant voluntarily vacated the quarter on 12.5.2003 and he also took away all the belongings/articles, but with malafide intention and in order to achieve his evil designs, with ulterior motive, he filed the present application, narrating therein fake, fictitious and
vague articles/house-hold items and prize bonds etc. to implicate the answering respondents unnecessarily, which is totally against the factual position. 4.
That contents of para No. 4 are denied being incorrect. The answering respondents cannot even think of committing contempt of court.
5.
That contents of para No. 5 are denied being incorrect. The fact is that the answering respondents are law-abiding persons and cannot think of taking law in their own hands.
6.
That affidavit is false. Counter affidavit is attached. Prayer of the applicant is totally false and baseless. It is therefore, respectfully prayed that the instant application may please be dismissed with costs. Answering Respondents,
Dated: ________ 1.____________________ 2.____________________
Through: RIAZ-UL-HASSAN, Advocate, 6-A, Ahsan Colony, Suraj Miani Road, Multan.
In the Court of Mr. Yasir Hussain Khan, Civil Judge-III, Muzaffargarh.
Muhammad Asim Khan Vs. Kot Addu Power Co. through its General Manager and another
DECLARATORY SUIT Application U/O-39, Rule 2(3) C.P.C. for Contempt of Court. WRITTEN REPLY. AFFIDAVIT of: Muhammad Umair Khan, General Manager, Administration & Human Resources. I, the above-named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under: -
1. That the contents of reply to the above-titled application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing is concealed. 2. That the contents to reply to the above-titled application may kindly be considered as part & parcel of this affidavit, which are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing is concealed. 3. That the contents of affidavit are correct and nothing is concealed. DEPONENT
In the Court of Mr. Yasir Hussain Khan, Civil Judge-III, Muzaffargarh.
Muhammad Asim Khan Vs. Kot Addu Power Co. through its General Manager and another
DECLARATORY SUIT Application U/O-39, Rule 2(3) C.P.C. for Contempt of Court. WRITTEN REPLY. AFFIDAVIT of: Muhammad Usman, Security Inspector, Kot Addu Power Co. Kot Addu, District Muzaffargarh. I, the above-named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under: -
1. That the contents of reply to the above-titled application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing is concealed. 2. That the contents to reply to the above-titled application may kindly be considered as part & parcel of this affidavit, which are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing is concealed. 3. That the contents of affidavit are correct and nothing is concealed. DEPONENT
In the Court of Mr. Yasir Hussain Khan, Civil Judge-III, Muzaffargarh.
Muhammad Asim Khan Vs. Kot Addu Power Co. through its General Manager and another
DECLARATORY SUIT & SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION. Application U/o-7, r-10 & 11 C.P.C.
Respectfully Sheweth: 1.
That the titled suit is pending adjudication before this Hon’ble Court and is fixed for 17.07.03.
2.
That this Hon’ble Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter, as the plaintiff/respondent is civil servant for the purpose of Service Tribunal Act and the matter pertains to the terms & conditions of employment as held by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in a reported judgment SCMR 2001 page 1898. Most of the averments are beyond the scope of enquiry in a civil court as they relate to the terms & conditions of employment and as such is barred by law. The proper forum to file such like cases is Federal Services Tribunal. Hence, the same is liable to be rejected.
3.
That the plaintiff/respondent has got no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit. Hence, the same is liable to be rejected.
4.
That in case the litigation continues, there is every likelihood to arise further legal complications. Hence the suit is liable to be rejected. Affidavit is attached.
In view of the above humble submissions, it is respectfully prayed that the application in hand may graciously be accepted and the suit of the
plaintiff/respondent
may
kindly
be
rejected/dismissed in the interest of justice. Applicant/defendant, Dated: ________ Through: 1.
RIAZ-UL-HASSAN, Advocate,
2.
Muhammad Jamil Qureshi Advocate, Seat No. District Courts, Muzaffargarh.
In the Court of Mr. Yasir Hussain Khan, Civil Judge-III, Muzaffargarh.
Muhammad Asim Khan Vs. Kot Addu Power Co. through its General Manager and another DECLARATORY SUIT & SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION. Application U/o-7, r-10 & 11 C.P.C.
AFFIDAVIT of: Muhammad Umair Khan, General Manager, Administration & Human Resources.
I, the above-named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under: -
1. That the above-titled application is being filed before this Hon’ble Court the contents of which may kindly be considered as part & parcel of this affidavit. 2. That all the contents of the above titled application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing is concealed.
DEPONENT
Muhammad Asim Khan Vs. Kot Addu Power Co. through its General Manager and another
DECLARATORY SUIT & SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION. WRITTEN STATEMENT.
Preliminary Objections: Respectfully Sheweth: 1.
That the plaintiff having handed over the possession of the quarter on 12.5.2002, hence, has got no locus standi to file the present suit. The suit is barred by law & liable to be rejected.
2.
That the plaintiff has got no cause of action against the answering respondent as he handed over the possession of the quarter on expiry of one month notice period as per rules issued to him. Hence, the suit is liable to be rejected.
3.
That the plaintiff is estopped by his own conduct to file the instant suit. Hence, the suit is liable to be rejected.
4.
That the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands, hence, the suit is liable to be rejected.
5. That the contents of the suit are based on malafide and ulterior motive. Hence, the suit is liable to be rejected.
6. That the suit is frivolous and vexatious, hence, is liable to be rejected. 7. That this Hon’ble Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter as the plaintiff is a civil servant for the purpose of Services Tribunal Act; and the matter pertains to the terms and conditions of employment. 8. That most of the averments are beyond the scope of enquiry in a civil court as they relate to terms and conditions of service. 9. That the plaintiff was a licensee and under the terms of the allotment, could not retain the possession of the house beyond the terms as per rules. 10.That this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter and suit is not maintainable in its present form. 11.That the suit cannot proceed for non-joinder of necessary parties as the house was allotted to the person entitled to it and his rights are involved. 12.That the plaintiff is estopped to file this suit by his conduct. On facts: 1.
That the contents of para No. 1 are not denied, however it is pertinent to mention here that the plaintiff committed acts of misconduct, for which he was charge-sheeted, he submitted his reply to the charge-sheet which was found unsatisfactory and as a result of that, an Inquiry Committee was formed to enquire into the matter. The plaintiff participated in the enquiry proceedings along-with the witnesses, he admitted his guilt of committing acts of misconduct. He was issued a second show cause notice to which he replied, which was unsatisfactory. He was also given opportunity of personal hearing, but he failed to bring any cogent reason in his defence. And as a result, he was dismissed from the service.
2.
That in reply to para No. 2, it is submitted, as narrated above in para No. 1, the dismissal order passed by respondent No. 2 is legal and proper. Rest of the contents pertain to procedure
for filing the appeal before the Federal Services Tribunal as the plaintiff is a civil servant. 3.
That in reply to para No. 3, it is submitted that contents of this para relate to the procedure only, which he has adopted for seeking redressal of his grievance against the order of dismissal dated 12.4.2003.
4.
That the contents of para No. 4 are not admitted as narrated. It is submitted that after the dismissal, the plaintiff can retain the house for a period of one month from the date of his dismissal in the light of WAPDA rules as on 27.6.1996 protected for staff under the staff agreement signed on 27.6.1996 between the Govt. of Pakistan, WAPDA and Pakistan WAPDA Hydro-electric Central Labour Union. It is pertinent to mention here that the plaintiff was issued notice for vacation of the quarter, which expired on 12.5.2003 and thereafter, the plaintiff handed over the possession to the answering defendant, rest of para are not admitted correct.
5.
That in reply to para No. 5, it is submitted that plaintiff’s dismissal from service has attained finality and the plaintiff was rightly issued notice dated 18.4.2003 to vacate the quarter, because, as already submitted above, the dismissed employee can retain the quarter only for one month after his dimissal from service. So, the contents of para No. 5 are not admitted as correct, as a result, he vacated the house and himself handed over the possession.
6.
That para No. 6 is not admitted as correct. He was given notice and he himself handed over the possession of quarter on 12.5.2003 and the quarter was allotted to M/s Wackenhut on 14.5.2003.
7.
That para No. 7 is not admitted as correct.
8.
That para No. 8 is not admitted as correct. The plaintiff has got no cause of action at present to move the instant suit as he has already handed over the possession of the quarter.
9.
That para No. 9 of the suit is not admitted as the plaintiff does no more reside within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.
10.
That para No. 10 is legal, hence, no comments. Prayer clause of the suit is not admitted as narrated. The plaintiff has handed over the possession of the quarter to the answering defendant and as an after-thought, has filed the present suit, which is not based on law and facts. Hence, same is liable to be dismissed with special costs in the interest of justice. Humble Defendant,
Dated: _______ Through: RIAZ-UL-HASSAN, Advocate, 6-A, Ahsan Colony, Suraj Miani Road, Multan.
Verification: Verified on oath at Muzaffargarh on this ____ day of June, 2003 that all the contents of the above-titled written reply including preliminary objections 1 to 6 and on facts from para No. 1 to 7 are true to the best of my knowledge and para No. 8 to 10 and prayer are correct to my belief. Defendants
In the Court of Mr. Yasir Hussain Khan, Civil Judge-III, Muzaffargarh.
Muhammad Asim Khan Vs. Kot Addu Power Co. through its General Manager and another DECLARATORY SUIT & SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION. Application for temporary injunction. WRITTEN REPLY
Preliminary Objections: Respectfully Sheweth: 1.
That all the contents for grant of stay i.e. prima facie, balance of convenience and irreparable loss are missing, hence, this application is liable to rejected, conversely, balance of convenience and loss is in favour of respondents/defendants.
2.
That the application has become infructuous as possession is with the respondents/defendants authority.
3.
That the application is not at all maintainable as the applicant himself has handed over the possession of the quarter and now with malafide intention has filed the present application. He is estopped by his conduct.
On Facts: 1.
That para No. 1 is admitted. Reply to the instant application is being filed before this Hon’ble Court, the contents of which are not being reproduced for the purpose of brevity and the same may be read as part and parcel of this application.
2.
That in reply to para No. 2, it is submitted that the applicant was dismissed from service after adopting proper disciplinary procedure. Whereas other contents of para No. 2, they relate to the procedure for filing appeal before the Hon’ble Federal Services Tribunal. As regards plaintiff’s dismissal from service, it has attained finality and he is no more an employee of the company.
3.
That para No. 3 is not admitted correct. The applicant on expiry of one month notice period, handed over the possession of the quarter on 12.5.2003.
4.
That para No. 4 is not admitted correct. According to rules, he is bound to vacate the quarter in the period of one month from the dismissal, which he did; and handed over the possession to the defendant/respondent.
5.
That para No. 5 is incorrect. Balance of convenience does not lean in favour of the applicant as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a judgment 1989 S.C.M.R. 1855.
6.
That para No. 6 is incorrect.
7.
That para No. 7 is incorrect. The applicant is not likely to face any irreparable loss to the applicant as held in the above mentioned judgment.
8.
Counter affidavit is attached. In view of the above, it is prayed that this application may please be dismissed in the interest of justice with special costs. Humble Defendants,
Through: RIAZ-UL-HASSAN, Advocate, 6-A, Ahsan Colony, Suraj Miani Road, Multan.
In the Court of Mr. Yasir Hussain Khan, Civil Judge-III, Muzaffargarh.
Muhammad Asim Khan Vs. Kot Addu Power Co. through its General Manager DECLARATORY SUIT & SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION. Application for temporary injunction. WRITTEN REPLY ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS
Affidavit of: Muhammad Umair Khan, General Manager, Administration & Human Resources. I, the above-named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under: 1.
That the contents of reply to stay application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing is concealed.
2.
That the contents to reply to stay application may kindly be considered as part & parcel of this affidavit, which are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing is concealed.
3.
That the contents of affidavit are correct and nothing is concealed. DEPONENT
In the Court of Mr. Yasir Hussain Khan, Civil Judge-III, Muzaffargarh.
Muhammad Asim Khan Vs. Kot Addu Power Co. through its General Manager and another
DECLARATORY SUIT Application U/O-39, Rule 2(3) C.P.C. for Contempt of Court. WRITTEN REPLY.
Preliminary Objections: Respectfully Sheweth: 1. That the applicant having handed over the possession of the quarter voluntarily on 12.5.2002, on expiry of one month notice period as per rules issued to him. Hence, has got no cause of action and locus standi to file the present application. The application is barred by law & liable to be rejected 2. That the applicant is estopped by his own conduct to file the instant application. Hence, the applicant is liable to rejection. 3. That the applicant has not come to the court with clean hands, hence, the application is liable to be rejected. 4.
That this Hon’ble Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter as the applicant/plaintiff is a civil servant for the purpose of Services Tribunal Act; and the matter pertains to the terms and conditions of employment. Hence, the application is liable to rejection.
5.
That the answering respondents have not at all violated the orders of this Hon’ble Court, hence, this application is liable to be rejected.
On facts: 1.
That contents of para No. 1 are formal.
2.
That contents of para No. 2 are not denied.
3.
That contents of para No. 3 are not admitted as correct. However,
it
is
pertinent
to
mention
here
that
applicant/plaintiff filed a declaratory suit on 12.5.2003 and status quo was ordered to be observed by this Hon’ble Court on 19.5.03 and the answering respondents received the same after 19.5.03. Whereas the applicant/plaintiff himself vacated the quarter in dispute voluntarily in response to the notice issued to him for vacation of the quarter as per rules applicable to the respondent establishment. But with malafide intention and evil designs, the applicant/plaintiff having concealing all the material facts, filed a suit and present application in this Hon’ble Court. In fact, the answering respondents have never violated the directions of this Hon’ble Court. The answering respondents are responsible persons. They cannot even think to take law in their own hands, because they are law-abiding officials. It is also worthmentioning here that the applicant has not brought the socalled occurrence in the notice of high-ups of the answering respondents. Even otherwise, the applicant/plaintiff has not moved to the concerned quarters of criminal jurisdiction. This shows clearly, malafide on the part of the applicant/plaintiff. The fact remains that after the dismissal from service and pursuance of notice of vacation. The applicant voluntarily vacated the quarter on 12.5.2003 and he also took away all the belongings/articles, but with malafide intention and in order to achieve his evil designs, with ulterior motive, he filed the present application, narrating therein fake, fictitious and
vague articles/house-hold items and prize bonds etc. to implicate the answering respondents unnecessarily, which is totally against the factual position. 4.
That contents of para No. 4 are denied being incorrect. The answering respondents cannot even think of committing contempt of court.
5.
That contents of para No. 5 are denied being incorrect. The fact is that the answering respondents are law-abiding persons and cannot think of taking law in their own hands.
6.
That affidavit is false. Counter affidavit is attached. Prayer of the applicant is totally false and baseless. It is therefore, respectfully prayed that the instant application may please be dismissed with costs. Answering Respondents,
Dated: ________ 1.____________________ 2.____________________
Through: RIAZ-UL-HASSAN, Advocate, 6-A, Ahsan Colony, Suraj Miani Road, Multan.
In the Court of Mr. Yasir Hussain Khan, Civil Judge-III, Muzaffargarh.
Muhammad Asim Khan Vs. Kot Addu Power Co. through its General Manager and another
DECLARATORY SUIT Application U/O-39, Rule 2(3) C.P.C. for Contempt of Court. WRITTEN REPLY. AFFIDAVIT of: Muhammad Umair Khan, General Manager, Administration & Human Resources. I, the above-named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under: -
1. That the contents of reply to the above-titled application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing is concealed. 2. That the contents to reply to the above-titled application may kindly be considered as part & parcel of this affidavit, which are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing is concealed. 3. That the contents of affidavit are correct and nothing is concealed. DEPONENT
In the Court of Mr. Yasir Hussain Khan, Civil Judge-III, Muzaffargarh.
Muhammad Asim Khan Vs. Kot Addu Power Co. through its General Manager and another
DECLARATORY SUIT Application U/O-39, Rule 2(3) C.P.C. for Contempt of Court. WRITTEN REPLY. AFFIDAVIT of: Muhammad Usman, Security Inspector, Kot Addu Power Co. Kot Addu, District Muzaffargarh. I, the above-named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under: -
1. That the contents of reply to the above-titled application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing is concealed. 2. That the contents to reply to the above-titled application may kindly be considered as part & parcel of this affidavit, which are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing is concealed. 3. That the contents of affidavit are correct and nothing is concealed. DEPONENT
In the Court of Mr. Yasir Hussain Khan, Civil Judge-III, Muzaffargarh.
Muhammad Asim Khan Vs. Kot Addu Power Co. through its General Manager and another
DECLARATORY SUIT & SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION. Application U/o-7, r-10 & 11 C.P.C.
Respectfully Sheweth: 1.
That the titled suit is pending adjudication before this Hon’ble Court and is fixed for 17.07.03.
2.
That this Hon’ble Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter, as the plaintiff/respondent is civil servant for the purpose of Service Tribunal Act and the matter pertains to the terms & conditions of employment as held by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in a reported judgment SCMR 2001 page 1898. Most of the averments are beyond the scope of enquiry in a civil court as they relate to the terms & conditions of employment and as such is barred by law. The proper forum to file such like cases is Federal Services Tribunal. Hence, the same is liable to be rejected.
3.
That the plaintiff/respondent has got no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit. Hence, the same is liable to be rejected.
4.
That in case the litigation continues, there is every likelihood to arise further legal complications. Hence the suit is liable to be rejected. Affidavit is attached.
In view of the above humble submissions, it is respectfully prayed that the application in hand may graciously be accepted and the suit of the
plaintiff/respondent
may
kindly
be
rejected/dismissed in the interest of justice. Applicant/defendant, Dated: ________ Through: 1.
RIAZ-UL-HASSAN, Advocate,
2.
Muhammad Jamil Qureshi Advocate, Seat No. District Courts, Muzaffargarh.
In the Court of Mr. Yasir Hussain Khan, Civil Judge-III, Muzaffargarh.
Muhammad Asim Khan Vs. Kot Addu Power Co. through its General Manager and another DECLARATORY SUIT & SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION. Application U/o-7, r-10 & 11 C.P.C.
AFFIDAVIT of: Muhammad Umair Khan, General Manager, Administration & Human Resources.
I, the above-named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under: -
1. That the above-titled application is being filed before this Hon’ble Court the contents of which may kindly be considered as part & parcel of this affidavit. 2. That all the contents of the above titled application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing is concealed.
DEPONENT
Related Documents
Asim Khan
November 2019 9
Asim
July 2020 6
Asim Mahmood
July 2020 6
Nisar Asim
November 2019 12
Khan
June 2020 26