Hafeez

IN THE COURT OF KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD AJMAL CIVIL JUDGE 1ST CLASS, KOT ADDU, DISTRICT MUZAFFARGARH.

Hafeez Ullah

Vs.

Kot Addu Power Co. Ltd. etc.

SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION. Written statement on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3.

Respectfully Sheweth: Preliminary Objections: 1.

That the suit is not maintainable in its present form, hence, liable to be rejected.

2.

That the plaintiff has got no cause of action against the answering defendants to file the present suit.

3.

That the plaintiff did not approach this Hon’ble Court with clean hands, suit is based on concocted facts and malafide, hence, liable to be rejected.

4.

That the plaintiff filed the above-titled suit with malafide intention to blackmail the answering defendants to pressurise the defendants. Hence, suit is liable to be rejected.

5.

That this Hon’ble Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, hence, suit is liable to be rejected. Plaintiff is Civil Servant for the purpose of Service Tribunal Act and question relates to terms and conditions of employment which this Hon’ble Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate.

6.

That in the light of clause 56 (d) of Specific Relief Act stay cannot be granted to the plaintiff as he has no locus standi to file the instant suit.

7.

That plaint is liable to be rejected due to non-joinder and misjoinder of parties.

Reply on facts: 1.

That the contents of para No. 1 are not admitted as stated. The plaintiff is not working as a fitter in PBS-11 from 1988, but

only with effect from

. It is correct that he was

allotted E267 & E268 in 1997, which were cancelled on his own request vide application dated 12.3.2001. The plaintiff has already been allotted E-223 with his consent. 2.

That in reply to the contents of para No. 2, it is submitted that plaintiff does not stand entitled for D type quarter. The fact remains that after the cancellation of E267 & E268, the above houses were allotted to one Mr. Tahir Hafeez. Mr. Hafeez Ullah continued to occupy one house E-267 by paying rent of Rs. 1000/- to Mr. Tahir Hafeez. The intention behind this was to save the house rent and electricity charges. When it came to the knowledge of the management that several quarters are subletted to other employees, the defendants affixed notices to this effect that the subletting of houses is not according to the policy, therefore, same should be avoided. Mr. Tahir Hafeez also informed in writing, he asked Mr. Hafeez Ullah to vacate the quarter. Instead of vacating the quarter, Mr. Hafeez Ullah extended threats to Mr. Tahir Hafeez. Mr. Tahir Hafeez reported the matter to the management through applications dated 2.1.2002, 16.1.2002 & 19.1.2002. That on the complaints of Mr. Tahir Hafeez, the plaintiff vacated the illegal occupation and then applied for allotment of double F type quarter through application dated 6.3.2002. The management with plaintiff’s consent, by giving option to him to choose from the available vacant houses, allotted quarter No. E-223, which is superior to F type quarters. His application dated 6.3.2002 clearly states and clearly shows that he requested for F type quarter which is smaller than E type and as such as an afterthought with malafide intention, filed

the

suit

before

this

Hon’ble

Court.

It is pertinent to mention here that if other employees are living in E type quarters in the same vicinity, how the plaintiff is claiming that the condition of house is not worthliving and is dangerous for inhabitation. It is also worth mentioning here that there are about

houses of same type

and constructed on the same date. The plaintiff was not bound to accept the house, had its condition not been good. It is also denied that Civil Engineer has declared the house dangerous to life. The plaintiff is habitual of misuing the company accommodation facility and violating the company’s housing policy for which the defendants have received various complaints with particular reference to Mr. Tahir Hafeez. Allegations levelled against defendant in this para are denied being incorrect. 3.

That in reply to para No. 3, it is submitted that the plaintiff is not at all being victimized due to his Trade union activities, nor he has been subjected to any torture. As already submitted the plainitff does not stand entitled for D type quarter due to junior in seniority, no right of plaintiff has been infringed which could have been cause of action for filing this suit. It is incorrect that as a result of privatization agreement dated 27.6.1996, the defendants are bound to allot him free and furnished

quarter.

Defendants

are

liable

to

provide

accommodation if available or pay house rent @ 30% of minimum of basic pay scale. The plaintiff is therefore at liberty either to opt for accommodation or receive the house rent. Plaintiff’s request for appointment of Commission is irrelevant as company has its fulfleged civil section consisting of B.Sc. Civil Engineer and several qualified Sub-Engineers to ensure maintenance of building and take care of any matter relating thereto. The plaintiff has been allotted quarter as per availability and with his consent. Privatization agreement does not specify particular clause of quarter to be allotted. It is the sole discretion of the management to decide which quarter is to be allotted to whom based on seniority in grade. It is totally incorrect that the defendants have ever refused the plaintiff to allot him. Plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit. In an application dated 1.1.2002, the plaintiff has mis-stated the facts that houses No. E-267 & E-268 were cancelled, but fact remains that he himself got

these cancelled through an application dated 13.3.2001. The plaintiff has also admitted the situation of the house No. E267, which is malafide on his part and concealed material fact from this Hon’ble Court. That the defendants have allotted him suitable accommodation vide order dated 11.3.2002 with his consent. Allegations not specifically denied in para No. 3 or denied being incorrect. As regards the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court, this is legal. Hence, no comments. As regards the value of suit for the purpose of court fee, it is legal, hence, no comments. Prayer: In view of the above, both on facts and laws, it is respectfully prayed that the declaratory suit so filed by the plaintiff may kindly be dismissed with special costs in the interest of justice. Humble Defendants, For Kot Addu Power Company Ltd. Dated: _________ Through: i) Riaz-ul-Hassan, Advocate ii)

Muhammad Amin Malik Advocate 38-Muhammadan Block, District Courts, Multan.

Verification: Verified on oath that the contents of written statement regarding territorial jurisdiction and court fee on facts and legal objections are correct to my belief and para 1 to 3 on facts are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. Humble Defendants, For Kot Addu Power Co. Ltd.