Mahmood Ul Hassan (reply)

IN THE COURT OF MIAN MUHAMMAD RIAZ KHURRAM, CIVIL JUDGE, MULTAN.

Syed Mahmood-ul-Hassan

VS.

Mahboob Alam etc.

Petition U/s 3 & 4 of the Contempt of Court Act. WRITTEN REPLY

Respectfully Sheweth: PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS: 1.

That the petition is not legally maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as no lis is pending before this court.

2.

That the petition is not legally maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the respondents were not party in the main suit.

3.

That the necessary ingredients in respect of Sec-3 & 4 of Contempt of Court Act are not present, so the petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

4.

That the petitioner along-with others has preferred an appeal against the order dated 26.9.2002; and is estopped by their words and conduct to file this petition.

5.

That this petition as per claim of petitioner is not legally maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

ON MERITS: 1.

That para No. 1 of this petition is correct upto this extent only that the suit was filed by the petitioner with Qaswar Abbas

and Aftab Ahmad. This Hon’ble Court was pleased to summon the defendants; and written statement was filed on their behalf. On 26.9.02, this Hon’ble Court recorded the statement of the counsel for defendants; and was pleased to pass an order on the same day. This order is very much part & parcel of that file. Remaining para is incorrect. The order dated 26.9.02 is mis-quoted and mis-stated in this para, which amounts to contempt of court as well. 2.

That the contents of para No. 2 are correct upto the extent that an application for temporary injunction was filed along-with the main suit; and the petitioner was not a contestant on the target date i.e. 31.8.02, but neither any order was suspended by this Hon’ble Court nor the nomination papers were accepted on the direction of this Hon’ble Court. The remaining para is not correct is totally self-explanatory.

3.

That the contents of para No. 3 are correct upto the extent of particulars of respondent No. 1, the remaining para is selfexplanatory. After the dismissal of the suit from Hon’ble Court, the fate of the petitioners and others was totally dependant upon the elected body of P.C.G.A.

4.

That the contents of para No. 4 are correct upto the extent of engagement of counsel, the remaining para is selfexplanatory.

5.

That the contents of para No. 5 are incorrect. The respondents in this petition were not a party in the main suit. The respondents neither violated nor disobeyed any order of this Hon’ble Court.

6.

That the contents of para No. 6 are incorrect. The respondents being the law-abiding citizens even could not think in such a way which may amounts to contempt of court.

It is therefore, respectfully prayed that the petition in hand has no force and is liable to be dismissed with costs. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit & proper may kindly be granted to the respondents in the interest of justice. Humble Respondents, Dated: ___________ Through: Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176

IN THE COURT OF MIAN MUHAMMAD RIAZ KHURRAM, CIVIL JUDGE, MULTAN.

Syed Mahmood-ul-Hassan

VS.

Mahboob Alam etc.

Petition U/s 3 & 4 of the Contempt of Court Act. WRITTEN REPLY

AFFIDAVIT of: Mahboob Multan.

Alam,

Additional

Secretary,

P.C.G.A.

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the above-titled written reply 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 Multan, this _____ day of December 2002 that the contents of this affidavit are true & correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Nothing has been kept concealed thereto. DEPONENT