Zafar Iqbal

IN THE LABOUR COURT NO. 9, MULTAN.

In re: Ahmad Hassan Ghazi

Vs.

The Agricultural Engineer, Multan.

Petition U/s 22-A (8) (g) of the I.R.O 1969. Petition Under Regulation 32 (2) of the N.I.R.C. (P &F) Regulation 1973. This application for vacation of Stay order dated 15.09.1996.

Respectfully Sheweth: 1. Facts of the case are that the petitioner Mr. Ahmad Hassan Ghazi, an employee of the Respondent as electrician, was served with a charge Sheet for acts of misconduct. An enquiry was held into the Charges. He was found guilty. A Show Cause Notice Under Rule 6(3) of E & D Rules, 1975 was served and after completing legal formalities and personal hearing, vide order dated 11.2.96, was compulsory retired. 2. That the Petitioner, then accepting the said order of his retirement, had collected and availed all the benefits such as commutation and gratuity Rs. 1,59,604.36. 3. That after availing of all the benefits of his retirement, he malafidely, on 13.6.96 i.e. after more than 4 months of the order, filed the above captioned Petition u/s 22-A (8) (g) of the I.R.O 1969 before N.I.R.C. 4. That along with the Petition, he also made an application under Regulation 32 (2) of the N.I.R.C (P & F) 1973, praying for suspension of operation of impugned order dated 11.2.96 of his compulsory retirement during the pendency and till the final decision of the main case.

5. That this application was taken up on 15.9.96 without notice to the Respondent and same day an ex-parte order was passed by the learned member, of course on wrong statement of facts by the Petitioner, admitting the Petition to regular hearing, order to issue notice to the Respondent, meanwhile the impugned order dated 11.2.96 was ordered to be held in abeyance. 6. That thereafter the Respondent was served with the notice who filed the written reply of the Petition on 5.11.98 but due to one reason or the other, the Petitioner under regulation 32 (2) of the N.I.R.C (P & F) 1973 has not been taken up for decision uptill today. 7. That vide order of the learned member N.I.R.C dated 11.8.99, the case has been transferred to this Hon’ble Court for disposal, hence this application for vacation of the interim stay order is being submitted before this Hon’ble Court inter alia on the following GROUNDS (i)

That the interim relief in the form of ex-parte order dated 15.9.96 could not be granted without first coming to conclusion that an unfair labour practice had been committed. The order in fact amounts to suspending a portion of the law empowers the employer to institute an enquiry against the employee for his misconduct and to pass orders in accordance with law. No power vests in the N.I.R.C to grant any interim relief without first coming to the conclusion that an unfair labour practice has been committed. PLD 1976 Lah. 611, PLJ 1979 Kar. 171 and 1969 PLC 216 are the authorities on the point Petitioner, having no prima facie case, was not entitled to any interim relief. Balance of convenience also tilts in favour of the Respondent and question of any irreparable loss does arise at all in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(ii)

That the interim order was passed ex-parte without notice to the Respondent on the Petitioner’s application under regulation 32 (2) without adopting the mandatory procedural provision of Clause (a) & (b) which lay down

that an enquiry or hearing be held in presence of both the parties to ascertain the factors giving rise to an unfair Labour practice. It is thereafter the N.I.R.C could pass an order of interim relief or otherwise without first restoring steps laid down in the Clause (a) to (c), the order thus passed is illegal & not maintainable. (iii)

That N.I.R.C had no jurisdiction to convert the Petitioner under Regulation 32 (2) to 32 (1) by passing an iterim order amounting to re-instatement of a retired person the interim order thus passed is without jurisdiction.

(iv)

That under sec 2 (xxviii0 and 25–A I.R.O 1969, person who had been retired from employment was no more a worker. Hence the Petitioner has no lucus standie to move Petition before N.I.R.C. Petition itself is not maintainable, the question of interim relief does not arise at all and as such the interim order is liable to be vacated.

(v)

That the Petitioner is estopped by his own conduct to make Petition before N.I.R.C after accepting his retirement order and availing all benefits anciliary thereto as such he is not entitled to any interim relief prayed for. Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that the interim

relief given to the Petitioner vide order dated 15.9.96 be recalled and vacated and in these terms, Petitioner’s application under Regulation 32 (2) of the N.I.R.C (P & F) 1973 be disposed off and dismissed with costs. Applicant/Respondent Dated: 27.10.99 Agricultural Engineer Multan Division, Multan. Through: Zafar Iqbal Khan, Advocate High Court, Chamber No. 124 District Courts, Multan.

IN THE COURT OF MR. IJAZ AHMAD CHADHAR, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE.

Muhammad Asad

Vs.

Mst. Humaira Naz

Dower Appeal Muhammad Asad Master Usama

Vs.

Mst. Humaira Naz & another.

Maintenance Appeal Vs. Muhammad Asad Maintenance Appeal

Respectfully Sheweth: 1. The above captioned three appeals are fixed for summoning the record at the learned Trial Court. 2. That applicant’s Counsel Mr. Zafar Iqbal Khan Advocate is busy in the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench and as such is unable to appear before this Hon’ble Court today. Original Cause list of the High Court Multan Bench is attached herewith. Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that hearing of the above appeals may kindly be adjourned some other date. Applicant/Appellant Dated: 26.10.99 Muhammad Asad

Through: Zafar Iqbal Khan, Advocate High Court, Chamber No. 124 District Courts, Multan.

In the Court of District Judge, Multan.

Syed Jaffer Hussain Shah S/o Syed Shabbeer Hussain Shah Caste Syed Bukhari R/o Chah Gulab Shah Wala Tehsil Melsi District Vehari. Applicant/Judgment Debtor Versus Muhammad Saddiq Ahmad Khan S/o Sultan Ahmad Khan Caste Dahar R/o Fareedabad Colony, Masoom Shah Road, Multan City. Respondent/Decree Holder. Application Under Order20 Rule 11 and Section 151 C. P.C. and Under Section 11 of the West Pakistan Relief of indebtedness Ordinance (xv) 1960.

Respectfully Sheweth:1.

That the Respondent/Decree Holder instituted a suit under Order XXVII C.P.C against the applicant/Judgment Debtor for the recovery of Rs. 500,000/- on the basis of a Pronote alleged to have been executed on 10.3.93 by the applicant in favour of the Respondent.

2. That the suit was filed in the Court of Learned District Judge Multan which was entrusted to the Court of Mr. Safdar Hussain Malik, the learned Additional District Judge, Multan for disposal and the same was disposed of by him vide order and decree dated 23.10.98. 3. That Mr. Safdar Hussiam Malik the Learned Additional Session Judge Multan, who passed the decree, has since been transferred

and probably is succeeded by Ch. Muhammad Saddiq Tabassum the learned Additional Session Judge Multan. This application may be entrusted for disposal to the learned successor Judge of Mr. Safdar Hussain Malik 4. That the applicant/Defendant in the suit made an application for leave to appear and defend the suit which was allowed subject to furnishing Bank Guarantee in the sum of Rs. 500,000/- The applicant, being a poor agriculturist failed to comply with the order of the Court with the result that the suit of the Plaintiff was decreed forthwith vide order and decree dated 23.10.98 of the learned Trial Court. 5.

That against the order and decree dated 23/10/98 passed by Malik Safdar Hussain the learned Additional Session Judge Multan, the applicant filed an appeal (R.F.A. No. 4/99) in the Lahore High Court Multan Bench, Multan which was taken up as a notice case on 14.10.99 by a Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court for final hearing. During the course of arguments, the applicant made an offer that he is prepared to take oath on Holy Quran that the Pronote is without consideration or if the Respondent make a Statement on Holy Book that he had paid a sum of Rs. 500,000/to the applicant, his appeal be dismissed. The Respondent took oath and appeal was dismissed accordingly vide order and decree dated 14.10.99 passed by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court Multan Bench. Copy of the Order dated 14.10.99 is attached herewith as Annex “A”.

6.

That meanwhile, the Respondent/Decree Holder filed execution of the decree in the Court of Mr. Safdar Hussain Malik the learned Additional District Judge Multan by attachment and sale of agricultural land of the applicant/Judgment Debtor. The land being situtate in Tehsil Melsi therefore the execution application was transferred by the learned Additional District Judge to the Court of Learned Civil Judge First Class, Melsi who on 4.10.99 issued warrant of attachment of the agricultural land belonging to the applicant/Judgment Debtor measuring 53 kanals 8 marlas comprising of Khewat No. 29 situated in Mauza Assar, Tehsil

Melsi District Vehari. Copy of the order of attachement is Annex “B”. 7. That the applicant now seeks for order regarding payment of decretal amount of Rs. 500,000/- on the GROUNDS (i)

That the applicant is an agriculturist who owns only 53 kanals 8 marlas of agricultural land and this is the only source of his livelihood. He owns no other property or any other source of income. If this property is sold in execution of decree, the applicant and his family would be deprive of his livelihood.

(ii)

That it may be mentioned here that decree holder has taken a false oath on Holy Quran. The Pronote is without consideration. There was no reason as to why he should give a poor, old and illiterate land tiller a heavy amount of Rs. 500,000/- The applicant has been defrauded but he leaves this matter of false oath taken by the decree holder to God who is almighty to take care of him. The applicant is actually ruined by the decree and in addition to under section 11 of the West Pakistan Relief of Indebtedness Ordinance 1960, is also entitled to be allowed payment of decretal amount in installments on humanitarian ground. Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be gracious enough to accept this application and the applicant/judgment debtor be allowed to pay the decretal amount in installments according to his six monthly agricultural income of the produce of his land measuring 53 kanals 8 marlas. Meanwhile further execution proceedings be held in abeyance. Affidavit is attached. Applicant Dated: 27.10.99 Syed Jaffer Hussain Shah Through: Zafar Iqbal Khan, Advocate High Court, Chamber No. 124 District Courts, Multan.

In the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Multan.

M/S Punjab Construction Co. Through Mirza Muhammad Aslam, Mnaging Director, R/o Farooqabad Road, Jam-Ke, Shekhupura. Plaintiff/Applicant Versus 1. B. Z. University Multan Through Dr. Muhammad Ishaq Akhtar, Vice Chancellor B. Z. University Mutlan. 2. Executive Engineer (University Engineer/Project Director B.Z. University Multan). Defendants Suit No. 350 of 1995 SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 440,000/Application for entrustment of above captioned case in the couurt of successor Judge of Mr. Ali Naqvi Tanweer Previous Civil Judge Multan

Respectfully Sheweth: 1. That the above captioned suit was filed by the Plaintiff in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Multan which case was entrusted to the Court of Syed Ali Naqvi Tanweer Civil Judge, Multan. 2. That during the pendency of the suit, the defendants made an application u/s 4 of the Arbitration Act which application was dismissed vide order dated 25.3.96 passed by the said learned Civil Judge. 3. That against this order, the defendants filed an appeal (F.A.O. No. 50/96) in the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench which appeal was finally heard and decided on 30.9.99 by Syed Najm–Ul-

Hassan Kazmi Judge and the case was remanded with the direction that the learned Trial Court should decide the application U/s 34 of the Arbitration Act afresh within two months and shall also decide the case within three months. Certified of the copy of the order of High Court is attached herewith. 4. That Syed Ali Naqvi Tanweer the learned Civil Judge, Mutlan has since been transferred and the case is to be fixed before the learned Successor Judge where the original file of the case is still pending awaiting the decision of F.A.O. Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that an order be made for entrustment of case No. 350 of 1995 to the Successor Court of Syed Ali Naqvi Tanweer The then learned Civil Judge, Multan. Applicant

M/S Punjab Construction Co.

Through: Zafar Iqbal Khan, Advocate High Court, Chamber No. 124 District Courts, Multan.

In the Court of District Judge, Multan.

Syed Jaffer Hussain Shah

Vs.

Muhammad Saddiq Ahmad Khan

Application Under Order 20 Rule 11 and Section 151 C. P.C. and Under Section 11 of the West Pakistan Relief of indebtedness Ordinance (xv) 1960.

Affidavit of: Syed Jaffer Hussain Shah S/o Syed Shabbeer Hussain Shah Caste Syed Bukhari R/o Chah Gulab Shah Wala Tehsil Melsi District Vehari. _______________ I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the above application 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 27th day of October, 1999 that the contents of this affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. DEPONENT

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

C.M. NO. ________/1999 In CR. NO.

652

/1982

1. Muhammad Amjad Khan 2. Muhammad Shoab Khan

sons of

Muhammad

3. Muhammmad Mohsin Khan

Asad Khan

4. Fakhr-un-Nisa Begum

Caste Pathan

5. Qamar-un-Nisa Begum

Daughters of

Tareen R/o

6. Mehmooda Begum

Qasba Gujrat

7. Zohra Begum

Tehsil Kot

8. Mst. Allah Jiwai

Widow of

Addu District Muzaffargarh.

Applicants/Revision Petitioners Versus Mst. Hayat Zeb-un-Nisa D/o Abdur-Razaq Khan Caste Pathan Tareen R/o Mauza Khadar Tehsil Kot Addu District Muzaffargarh. Respondent Application U/s 151 C.P.C. for Restoration of C.R. 652/1982 dismissed for nonprosecution on 19.10.99 by his lordship Mr. Justice Maulvi Anwar-ul-Haq. Respectfully Sheweth: 1.

That the above captioned C. R. No. 652/82 was fixed for hearing on 19.10.99 before his lordship Mr. Justice Maulvi Anwar-ul-

Haq. When the matter was called on for hearing on the date, the applicant/Revision Petitioners were absent and their Council Mr. Pervaiz Akhtar, being died was also not present and as such the Civil Revision was dismissed for non-prosecution. 2. That the applicant was seriously ill and was getting medical treatment in Multan when he got a telephonic message from Qasba Gujrat that case of Mst. Hayat Zeb-un-Nisa is fixed for hearing on 19.10.99. The medical certificate is attached. 3. That the applicant, himself being bed ridden due to illness, sent one Nazir Hussain Nandla, a Mureed of the applicant to Mr. Zafar Iqbal Khan Advocate for conformation of the date of hearing. 4. That Mr. Zafar Iqbal Khan Advocate told the said Nazir Hussain that the case of Mst. Zeb-un-Nisa is fixed for 2.11.99 (F.C).

5.

That on 2.11.99, at 9 a.m. the applicant approached his said council in the Court of his lordship Mr. Justice Maulvi Anwar-ulHaq and enquired of him as to why my family received the notice for 19.10.99 instead of 2.11.99. The Council, first appeared in the case of Zeb-un-Nisa which was fixed for hearing in this Hon’ble Court and the said case was adjourned for 12.11.99. Thereafter, he went to the office of the High Court to enquire about the other date i.e. 19.10.99 where he was told that another case of Hayat Zeb-un-Nisa (Cr. 652/82) was fixed for 19.10.99 and not the case of Zeb-un-Nisa ( FAO 13/74). He was furhter told that C.R. No. 652/82 was dismissed for non-prosecution on 19.10.99.

6.

That the applicant had two cases in the Hihg Court: Title of both the case are almost similar (I) Mst. Hayat Zeb-un-Nisa Vs. Muhammad Asad (F.A.O. 13/74) (ii) Muhammad Asad Vs. Mst. Hayat Zeb-un-Nisa (C.R. 652/82).

7.

That unfortunately, when the applicant received a message on telephone, he thougth of the case of F.A.O. 13/74 and could not

recall in the memory the other case Cr. 652/82 as the said case was never fixed after 22.9.87. That is why he sent Nazir Hussain to Mr. Zafar Iqbal Khan advocate who is Council in F.A.O. 13/74 only and not in the case C.R. 652/82. 8. That the absence of the Petitioner in Cr. 652/82 was due to mistaken belief that the same is a case of F.A.O. 13/74 in which date of hearing was fixed by the Hon’ble High Court as 2.11.99 as it was told to Nazir Hussain by the said Council. The absence of the applicant was not due to any negligence on his part and was not in any way intentional. 9. That the Petitioners/Applicants had been perusing the case since 1982 diligently and their valuable rights are involved in the case. If their case is not restored and decided on merits, they will suffer an irreparable loss. Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be gracious enough to accept this application and to restore the case Cr. 652/82 and to decide the same on merits after notice to the Respondent. Affidavit of the applicant and of Nazir Hussain and of Mr. Zafar Iqbal Khan advocate is attached herewith. Applicants/Petitioners Date: -3.11.99 Muhammad Amjad Khan and others Through: Zafar Iqbal Khan, Advocate High Court, Chamber No. 124 District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 2216

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

C.M. NO. ________/1999 In C.M. NO. 1499-C /1999 In CR. NO. 652 /1982 1. Muhammad Amjad Khan 2. Muhammad Shoab Khan

sons of

Muhammad

3. Muhammmad Mohsin Khan

Asad Khan

4. Fakhr-un-Nisa Begum

Caste Pathan

5. Qamar-un-Nisa Begum

Daughters of

6. Mehmooda Begum

Qasba Gujrat

7. Zohra Begum 8. Mst. Allah Jiwai

Tareen R/o

Tehsil Kot Widow of

Addu District Muzaffargarh.

Applicants/Revision Petitioners Versus Mst. Hayat Zeb-un-Nisa D/o Abdur-Razaq Khan Caste Pathan Tareen R/o Mauza Khadar Tehsil Kot Addu District Muzaffargarh. Respondent Application U/s 151 C.P.C. for restoration of C.M. No. 1499-C/99 in C.R. 652/1982, dismissed for non-prosecution on 1.12.99 by his lordship Mr. Justice Maulvi Anwar-ul-Haq J. Respectfully Sheweth: 1.

That the above captioned application No. 1499-C/99 for restoration of C. R. No. 652/82 was fixed for hearing on 1.12.99 which was dismissed for non-prosecution.

2.

That on perusal of weekly regular list, Mr. Zafar Iqbal Khan Advocate Counsel for the applicant, inadvertently, mistook the

date fixed as 2.12.99 instead of 1.12.99 and entered the same date in his case diary and accordingly attended the Court on the same date at 8 a.m. When he did not find his case in the list pasted outside the Courtroom, on enquiry the Steno of the Court informed the counsel that C.M. 1499-C/99 was fixed for 1.12.99, which was dismissed for non-prosecution. Photocopy of the case diary 1.12.99 & 2.12.99 is attached herewith as Annexure “A” & “A/1”. 3. That mistake in noting the case was inadvertent and in no way intentional or malafide on the part of the applicant or his Counsel. It was just a human error. 4. That the applicant’s valuable right is involved in the case and in case his case is not decided on merits, he will suffer an irreparable loss. Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that this application be accepted and C.M. No. 1499-C/99 in C.R. No. 652/82 may kindly be restored and be decided on merits. Affidavit is attached. Applicants/Petitioners Date: -2.12.99 Muhammad Amjad Khan and others Through: Zafar Iqbal Khan, Advocate High Court, Chamber No. 124 District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 2216

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

C.M. NO. ________/1999 In C.M. NO. 1499-C /1999 In CR. NO. 652 /1982 Muhammad Amjad Khan etc.

Vs

Mst. Hayat Zeb-un-Nisa

Affidavit of: Muhammad Amjad Khan S/o Muhammad Asad Khan Caste Pathan Tareen, R/o Qasba Gujrat, Tehsil Kot Addu District Muzaffargarh. I do hereby solemnly affirm and declare on oath that all the averments in the above captioned application are correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Nothing is untrue nor any fact is kept secret. Deponent Verification: Verified on this 2nd day of December, 1999 that the contents of the application are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. Deponent

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

C.M. NO. ________/1999 In C.M. NO. 1499-C /1999 In CR. NO. 652 /1982 Muhammad Amjad Khan etc.

Vs

Mst. Hayat Zeb-un-Nisa

Affidavit of: Zafar Iqbal Khan Advocate, 124-District Courts, Multan. I do hereby solemnly affirm and declare on oath that all the averments in the above captioned application are correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Nothing is untrue nor any fact is kept secret. Deponent Verification: Verified on this 2nd day of December, 1999 that the contents of the application are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. Deponent

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

C.M. NO. ________/1999 In C.M. NO. 1499-C /1999 In CR. NO. 652 /1982 Muhammad Amjad Khan etc.

Vs

Mst. Hayat Zeb-un-Nisa

Affidavit of: Muhammad Amjad Khan S/o Muhammad Asad Khan Caste Pathan Tareen, R/o Qasba Gujrat, Tehsil Kot Addu District Muzaffargarh. I do hereby solemnly affirm and declare on oath that all the averments in the above captioned application are correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Nothing is untrue nor any fact is kept secret. Deponent Verification: Verified on this 2nd day of December, 1999 that the contents of the application are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. Deponent

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

C.M. NO. ________/1999 In CR. NO. 652 /1982 Muhammad Amjad Khan etc.

Vs

Mst. Hayat Zeb-un-Nisa

Affidavit of: Zafar Iqbal Khan Advocate, 124-District Courts, Multan. 1. That I do hereby solemnly affirm and declare on oath that Mr. Muhammad Amjad Khan Tareen (the applicant) is my spiritual leader (Peer Sahib). 2. That on 17.10.99, Mr. Muhammad Amjad Khan was seriously ill and was residing in my house in Mauza Nandla, Tehsil & District Multan. 3.

That he received a telephonic message from his family member from Qasba Gujrat that case Mst. Hayat Zeb-unNisa was fixed for 19.10.99 without further explaination as to whether it was a case F.A.O. 13/74 or C.R. 652/82.

4. That under the instructions of Mr. Muhammad Amjad Khan, I went to his Council Mr. Zafar Iqbal Khan advocate to inform him about the fixation of Mst. Hayat Zeb-un-Nisa’s case, who in turn told me that the case was actually fixed by the Hon’ble High Court for 2.11.99 and that is why we failed to appear in the case of C.R. 652/82 on 19.10.99. 5. That the default of non-appearance was due to a mistaken belief that case of Mst. Zeb-un-Nisa (F.A.O. 13/74) was fixed and that too was for 2.11.99 and not for 19.10.99. It was in no way intentional. 6. That contents of the affidavit are correct and true and nothing has been kept concealed thereto. Deponent IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

C.M. NO. ________/1999 In CR. NO. Muhammad Amjad Khan etc.

652 Vs

/1982 Mst. Hayat Zeb-un-Nisa

Affidavit of: Mr. Zafar Iqbal Khan Advocate, 124-District Courts, Multan, C.C.No. 2216. 1. I do hereby solemnly affirm and declare on oath that one Nazir Hussain Nandla who is the spiritual follower of Mr. Muhmmad Amjad Khan Tareen, the applicant, came to me on 17.10.99 to inform me that the case of Mst. Hayat Zeb-un-Nisa was said to be fixed for 19.10.99. I told him that the case of Hayat Zeb-uin-Nisa was fixed by the Hon’ble High Cout for 2.11.99 and not for 19.10.99. I further decalre on oath that in my knowledge, only one case of Zeb-un-Nisa was pending in the High Court and I had no knowledge about the pendency of another similar titled case (C.R. 652/82) that is why I gave him the correct date of the case (F.A.O. 13/74). 2. That on 2.11.99, when Mr. Muhammad Amjad Khan contacted me in the High Court, and on his further inquiry as to why a notice was received by his family for a date 19.10.99, I went to the office and came to know that it was in fact another case of Zeb-un-Nisa (C.R. 652/82) which was fixed for 19.10.99 and the same was dismissed for non-prosecution on the date. 3. That I further declare that non-appearance of the Petitioners in the case (C.R. 652/82) was due to mistaken belief and it was in no way intentional.

4. That contents of the affidavit are correct and true and nothing has been kept concealed thereto. Deponent

IN THE COURT OF MR. IJAZ AHMAD CHADHAR, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE.

In re: Master Ausama

Vs

Mehar Asad

Appeal U/2 14, Family Courts Act. Application for rejection of Memorandum of appeal. Respectfully Sheweth: 1. On 10.3.98, a suit for recovery of maintenance was filed by Mst. Humaira Naz and Master Ausama minor against the respondent in the Family Court at Lahore. The Suit, after contest, was decreed by the Family Court on 5.7.99. The respondent/defendant was directed to pay past maintenance to Mst. Humaira Naz, plaintiff No. 1 at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month w.e.f. September, 1995 to 6.12.98 plus 3 months for iddat period and Rs. 1,500/- per month was fixed as past maintenance and Rs. 3,000/- per month with 10% annual increase till arising of any legal disability as future maintenance to master Ausama plaintiff No. 2/Appellant. 2. Aggrieved by this decision, Master Ausama, the appellant filed the above captioned appeal u/s 14 of the W.P. Family Courts Act, 1964 claiming therein the rate of maintenance (past and future) as Rs. 10,000/- per month instead of Rs. 1500/- past maintenance as decreed in his favour from September, 1995 to July 1999 (47 months) which was worked out by the learned Trial Court as Rs. 70,500/- In appeal, the appellant claims past maintenance for 47 months at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month which works out to be Rs. 470,000/- in addition to future maintenance at the same rate and as such the subject matter of appeal shall be Rs. 470,000/- the relief claimed in appeal minus Rs. 70,500/- as decreed i.e. Rs. 399,500/- the difference between the two amounts.

3. That under section 7 (I), First Schedule, Art I of the Court Fees Act (viii of 1870), Memo of appeal shall be liable to ad valorem Court fee, and as such a Court fee of Rs. 15,000/- was to be fixed on the memo of appeal which the appellant had not paid. Wherefore it is respectfully prayed that the appellant be directed to pay Court fee of Rs. 15,000/- within the time fixed by this Hon’ble Court, and in case of appellant’s failure to pay the required Court fee, his memo of appeal be rejected. Appellant Dated: - 13.11.99 Mehar Asad Through: Zafar Iqbal Khan, Advocate High Court, Chamber No. 124 District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 2216

In the Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan.

Ahmad Hassan Ghazi

Vs.

Agricultural Engineer

Petition U/s 22-A(8) (g), I.R.O. 1969. Application for vacation of interim Stay order. Authorities referred to on behalf of the Applicant/Agricultural Engineer. 1. PLJ 1980 Lah. 478

“No order under regulation 32 (2) could be passed without enquiry or hearing held in presence of bothr the parties and that too only to the extent of staying the likelihood of occurrence of unfair labour practice. If the action of compulsory retirement has already been taken, commission in such case could not set aside orders of management

retiring

the

employee-

interim relief could not be granted. 2. PLJ 1987 TRC. (Labour) 98. “Petitioner

was

compulsory

retired

from service on the basis of misconduct on his part. He was charge-sheeted, enquiry was held, found guilty, and after show cause notice, he was retired from service.

His

retirement,

having

no

connection with his trade union activities, application based on allegation of unfair labour practice under section 22-A (8) (g) of the Ordinance is not maintainable. 3. 1991 PLC 338

“Petition for stay not maintainable on the vague allegation of unfair labour practice without specific details as to where, when and how it was committed.

4. 87 PLC 547

“It can not be said that if the management

takes

action

guilty

of

against

misconduct,

a

worker

it

acts

who in

is

found

violation

of

section 15 of the Ordinance”. 1. PLD 1976 Lah. 611 “Reinstatement cannot be ordered as interim relief. It is only when the management found guilty of unfair labour practice, then and only then reinstatement may be ordered as consequential relief”. 2.

NLR 1984 Labour 23 “In absence of prima facie case, no order of reinstatement can be passed”.

3.

1987 PLC 547

“In absence of prima facie case, no order

of

reinstatement

can

be

passed”. 4. 1987 PLC 349

“Unless unfair labour practice is established

on

management,

the no

part

order

of for

reinstatement could be granted as interim relief”. 5. 1984 PLC 1342, 6. NLR 1989 Labour 8, 7. 94 PLC 413

“Retired person is no more a worker hence not competent to invoke jurisdiction of N.I.R.C”.

In view of the above authorities, it is respectfully prayed that interim relief ex-parte granted to the Petitioner, may very kindly be vacated and Petitioner’s application under regulation 32 (2) be dismissed with cost. Applicant Dated: -13.11.99 Agricultural Engineer, Multan. Through: Zafar Iqbal Khan,

Advocate High Court, Chamber No. 124 District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 2216 To, The Motor Taxation Authority, Excise and Taxation Office, Multan.

Mst. Haseen Begum Widow of Malik Ghulam Hussasin Caste Bosan R/o Mauza Bosan Utar, Tehsil and District Mutlan. Applicant Versus Sheikh Abdul Salam partener International Motors Chowk Rasheedabad Khanewal Road, Multan. Respondent

Cancellation of Transfer of Ownership of Motor Car Toyota Corrlla Model 1986 Registration No. MNV 23.In the name of Respondent. Sir, 1. That Motor Car No. MNV 23 Toyota Corolla Model 1986 was owned and possessed by Malik Ghulam Hussain (deceased) S/o Malik Haji Manzoor Ahmad Khan Bosan R/o Mauza Bosan Multan. 2. That said Malik Ghulam Hussain Bosan died of heart attack on 21.3.98 and the applicant and her daughters being the legal heirs of Ghulam Hussain became owner in possession of the said motor car. 3. That the said motor car, after the death of applicant’s husband, used to be driven by our driver Khadim Hussain and sometimes the applicant’s brother Malik Muhammad Arshad Iqbal. 4. That Malik Muhammad Arshad Iqbal used to visit the respondent at his show room International Motors in connection with his side business. 5. That the Registration Book of the motor car was stolen and when it came tot the knowledge of applicant’s driver about the missing of the registration book from dash board diggi of the motor car, the

Petitioner was forced to get a duplicate copy of the registration book after making a report in P. S. Gulgasht Multan. 6. That sometimes, whereafter the duplicate registration book was also stolen. When the applicant came to know of this second theft of the registration book, she through her brother, Muhammad Arshad Iqbal enquired from the registration authority E.T.O office, Multan from where it transpired that the ownership of the motor car has been transferred in the name of the respondent. 7. That the applicant being the owner in possession of the motor car, has never authorised any body for transfer of the registration and it has come to know that the said respondent in collusion with the staff of the registration authority has managed deceitfully to transfer this car in his own name. 8. That the applicant is owner in possession of the car. She has never sold it to the respondent nor she signed any transfer letter for the transfer of the ownership. The respondent has got the transfer of ownership in his name deceitfully and fraudulently and as such he has committed the offence of 467/468/471 and 420/406 P.P.C. Photo state copy of the death certificate of Ghulam Hussain and copy of original registration book is attached herewith. Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that transfer of ownership of the above motor car in the name of the respondent may kindly be cancelled and its ownership in the record may restored as it was before the impugned transfer. And proper legal action be taken against the respondent and the concerned official of the department with whose collusion the offence has been committed. Yours faithfully,

Mst. Haseen Begum

Through: Muhammad Arshad Iqbal (real brother).

Basti Bosan Utar Tehsil & District Multan.

IN THE COURT OF CHAUDHARY MUHAMMAD AZAM CIVIL JUDGE, IST CLASS, MULTAN.

Sheikh Muhammad Sadiq

vs.

Ghulam Muhammad etc.

Suit for Specific Performance Application for adjournment of hearing. Respectfully Sheweth: 1. The above captioned suit is pending before this Hon’ble Court and is fixed for today. 2.

That the Plaintiff’s Counsel Mr. Zafar Iqbal Khan Advocate is to leave for Lahore to pursue 4 cases W.P. 99/97, W.P. 99/98, W.P. 99/99 and W.P. 6900 of the year 1998 fixed for final hearing before the Hon’ble Division Bench of Chief Justice Lahore High Court, Lahore and as such the counsel cannot appear in the above captioned case, the hearing of which may kindly be adjourned to some other day. Humble Applicant

Sheikh Muhammad Sadiq

IN THE COURT OF CHAUDHARY MUHAMMAD AZAM CIVIL JUDGE, IST CLASS, MULTAN.

Ghulam Sarwar

Vs.

Haji Muhammad etc.

Suit for Specific Performance Application for adjournment of hearing. Respectfully Sheweth: 3. The above captioned suit is pending before this Hon’ble Court and is fixed for today. 4.

That the Plaintiff’s Counsel Mr. Zafar Iqbal Khan Advocate is to leave for Lahore to pursue 4 cases W.P. 99/97, W.P. 99/98, W.P. 99/99 and W.P. 6900 of the year 1998 fixed for final hearing before the Hon’ble Division Bench of Chief Justice Lahore High Court, Lahore and as such the counsel cannot appear in the above captioned case, the hearing of which may kindly be adjourned to some other day. Humble Applicant

Ghulam Sarwar

IN THE COURT OF DIRECTOR EXCISE & TAXATION, MULTAN.

Azhar Iqbal Khan

vs.

E.T.O. Multan.

Appeal Property Tax. P.U. No. 615-E, Shah Rukn-e-Alam colony, Multan.

Written Arguments on behalf of Appellant. Sir, The following are the written arguments being submitted on behalf of the appellant: Description of property: -

House No. 615-E S.R.A. Multan is built upon a 5 marla plot. Its building consists of: 2 small rooms (10”X10”) without bath rooms. 1 Bathak 1 Galery (6”X14”) 1 Kitchen 1 Bathroom in courtyard

Condition of the House: -

Due to twice breakage of West Bank of the nearby Nobahar Canal, its water flew into the houses, remained there for 6 days at a level of 2 feet causing great damage to the whole building.

Sole Ownership: -

This house is occupied by the owner for his residence. No other property is owned by the owner or any member of his family in Pakistan.

Ascertainment of Annual value U/s 5-A: -

Urban immovable property tax Act, 1958 section 5-A (as ammended vide Punjab Finance act, 1998). The annual value is to be determined on the bases of valuation table notified by or under the authority of the Government. Copy of section 5-A attached.

Note: -

While ascertaining the annual value of house in question, only two small principle living rooms shall be taken into consideration exclusive of ancillaries as Bathak, Kitchen, Bathroom, Gallery etc.

Valuation Table: -

Yardstick of the department shows annual value Rs. 35 to Rs. 60 per room per month.

Keeping in view the small size of the rooms and their damaged condition, the anunal value may be ascertained at Rs. 35 per room per month and for two rooms, it comes to Rs. (35X2) =70 annual value 70X12 = 840 Rebate of 10% for Repairs: -

Rs. 840-84

Further deduction U/s 3 (2) proviso:-

Section 3 (2) reads: “Provided that where a building is occupied for residential purpose by the owner himself, the tax shall be levied at the said rate on one half of the annual value of such building if the owner or any member of his family does not own any other property in that rating area”. As such the annual value comes to Rs. 756 X1/2 = 378

Further deduction U/s 3(4): -

After deduction Net annual Value: Exemption from Tax Section 4(C) (II) (1): -

Examples: -

= 756

Under section 3 (4) as amended by the Punjab Finance Ordinance (xxii of 1981) which reads: “in case of property of the annual value not exceeding 12,000/- rupees, a deduction of Rs. 270/- from the annual value shall be allowed”. 378-270 deduction U/s 3 (4) =108 Section 4 Clause (C) (II) (1) reads: “The Tax shall not be leviable in respect of the following properties: (a) (b) (c) (i) (ii) One building occupied by an owner for his residence, the annual value of which (i) does not exceed one thousand and eighty rupees in the rating areas of a Municipality of the First class. Property No. 799-E S.R.A. (5 marla) annual value ascertained at Rs. 206/Property No. 774-E S.R.A. (5 marla) annual value ascertained at Rs. 206/Property No. 513-A S.R.A. (5 marla) annual value ascertained at Rs. 200/Property No. 805-E S.R.A. (10 marla)

annual value ascertained at Rs. 360/Property No. 806-E S.R.A. (10 marla) annual value ascertained at Rs. 284/In view of the above legal as well as factual position, it is respectfully prayed that appeal be accepted and property No. 615-E S.R.A. Colony, Multan may kindly be declared exempted from levy of Tax u/s 4 of the property tax Act, 1958 as amended. Azhar Iqbal Khan Appellant

Through: Zafar Iqbal Khan Advocate High Court, 124-District Courts, Multan. Note: It is requested that these written arguments may be made part of the appeal file. Advocate.

In the Court of Ijaz Ahmad Butter Sahib Civil Judge/ Rent Controller Multan.

Javed Iqbal S/o Muhammad Anwar Caste Arian R/o H.No. 123 A/4 Lalazar Colony, Multan. Versus Naseera Begum W/o Hameed R/o H. No. 123 A/4 Lalazar Colony, Multan. Ejectment Application. Application for Contempt of Court.

Respectfully Sheweth: 1. That the above captioned Ejectment Application is pending before this Hon’ble Court in which next date of hearing is fixed as 8.12.99. 2. That the petitioner is the owner of the premises and is residing in the upper portion of the house while respondent is equipping the lower portion of the house as tenant. 3. That at the time of tenancy, only one electricity meter was installed on the for domestic purpose but later on the respondent started the beauty parlour in the premises and without knowledge of the petitioner, she got the electricity connection converted into commercial which is much more costly than the connection for domestic purpose and she compelled the petitioner to pay his share of bill at commercial rates. 4. That the petitioner aggrieved only to pay the electricity bill at domestic rates and not on commercial rates whereupon the defendant disconnected the electricity line going to the upper portion of the house. 5. That the petitioner submitted the application before this Hon’ble Court seeking directions to the tenant to restore the supply line to the petitioner and charge the bill at domestic rates. 6. That through order dated 18.6.99 the learned Court decided the controversy on the way and ordered the restoration of supply line to the petitioner and directed the petitioner to pay the bill on domestic and the remaining bill would be paid by the respondent

at commercial basis. It was further directed that if such arrangement is not accepted by the respondent she may get the domestic electricity meter restored for use by the petitioner as replacement of former electricity meter. 7. That instead of complying with the directions of the Court, respondent discontinued making the payment of bills at all which resulted in disconnection of the supply line and removal of the meter as such she made the petitioner to suffer for her fault. Although the petitioner was ready to pay his share of electricity bill at domestic rate. 8. That when the petitioner asked the respondent in the presence of Aftab Ahmad and Fida Hussain to comply with the order of the Court, she refused to do so and in this way, she took the order of the Court as waste paper. This conduct of respondent amounts to contempt of Court and liable to be punished. Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that respondent be directed to get the domestic electricity meter restored for use of the petitioner as it was at the very out set of the tenancy. It is further prayed that penal action under the contempt of court act be taken for denying the directions of the court contained through order dated 18.6.99. Affidavit is attached. Applicant Javed Iqbal

Through: Malik Muhammad Hanif Arain, Advocate Multan. In the Court of Ijaz Ahmad Butter Sahib Civil Judge/ Rent Controller Multan.

Javed Iqbal S/o

Vs.

Naseera Begum

Ejectment Application. Application for Contempt of Court.

AFFIDAVIT of:Javed Iqbal S/o Muhammad Anwar Caste Arian R/o H.No. 123 A/4 Lalazar Colony, Multan.

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the above application 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, 1999 that the contents of this affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. DEPONENT

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE.

Muhammad Asad

Vs.

Mst. Humera Naz etc.

Writ Petition under Article 199 the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Authorities referred to on behalf of the petitioner. S.No.

Citations

Jist of Authorities.

1.

PLD 1987 Kar 612

Art. 2 (A) Constitution of

at 614 (k)

Pakistan

1973.

Court

is

empowered to construe and enforce existing laws, with such adaptations as are necessary in the light of Qur’an & Sunnah. 2.

PLD 1976 Lah.

Muhammadan Law-marked

930 at 933 (g)

trend of suerior judiciary in Pakistan to apply Islamic Law and its principles where statute law either silent or to be interpreted or leaves matter in Court’s discretion.

3.

Family Courts Act Family

Court

shall

have

Sec. 5 exclusive jurisdiction to entertain, hear and adjudicate upon matters specified in schedule. Schedule:

(iii)

Maintenance.

Sec. 20

Family court is invested with powers

of

magistrate

as

exercised in sec. 488 Cr.P.C. Note: - Sec. 488 Cr.P.C. admits

only

future

maintenance. Note: - Section 5 of F.C. Act is silent regarding past or future maintenance. The matter of maintenance is left at Court’s discretion and in

view of the Art. 2 (A) of Constitution, the Court is not only empowered but duty bound to apply Islamic law i.e. sect. 278 Muhammadan Law. 4.

Sec. 278 Muhammadan If the husband neglects or Law.

refuses to maintain his wife without any lawful cause, the wife may sue him for maintenance, but she is not entitled to a decree for past maintenance, unless claim is based on a specific agreement. Note:

-

There

was

no

agreement of maintenance between the spouse. There is no neglect or refusal on the part of the appellant to maintain his wife and son as per

admissions

of

the

respondent in her statement as P.W. 5.

NLR 1991 SD 347

Maintenance to wife under Islamic Law. There is no scope for past maintenance to wife.

6.

PLD 2000 FSC I

Muslim Family Laws Ord. 1961---Sec. 7 (3) (5) are repugnant to injunctions of Islam.

7.

Sec. 313

A

Muhammadan law.Operates

divorce as

an

in

writing

irrevocable

divorce and takes effect immediately

on

its

execution. Note: - Written Divorce deed Dated12.2.98 was produced along with written statement in suit for maintenance. Though not exhibited as the same was admitted. 8.

1992 SCMR 1273

Muslim Family Law Ord. S.7 read with Art. 2 (A) of the Constitution. Divorce becomes effective even in the absence of notice to the Chairman under sec. 7. Ineffectiveness of divorce, in the absence of a notice to the Chairman,

as

envisaged by sec. 7 was against injunctions of Islam. 9.

PLD 1988 Kar.

Held same as above.

169 at 173

10.

1990 MLD

W.P. Family Court Act,

344 at 345(e).

1964 sec. 5. Suit for maintenance by a divorced wife is not maintainable. Note: - Written divorce

dated 12.2.98 being effective immediately,

suit

recovery

maintenance

of

for

having been filed on 10.3.98 was not maintainable. The Plaintiff however, at the most entitled to maintenance for a period of Iddat of 90 days ending 12.5.98 and as such she

is

entitled

to

maintenance for two months from 10.3.98 to 12.5.98. 11.

PLD

1976

AJK

9 at 10(d).

Past

Maintenance

Under

Hanfi School of Law, not being permissible and available

only

from

the

date of application or suit. 12.

PLD 1958 (W.P) Lah

Muhammadan Law.

596 (e).

Past maintenance can not be claimed from father unless previously fixed by Court.

13.

1991 CLC 766

Muslim Family Law Ord. Sect.

9-Past

Maintenance

cannot be granted to minor, but application of father for custody of minor being pending before guardian judge, future maintenance till decision of application could be

granted

to

Note: - Admittedly

minor.

application of the appellant for custody of his minor son is pending in the Court of Guardian Judge, Lahore, which

is

fixed

for

the

evidence of the parties. 14.

1994 MLD 574

Determination of rate of maintenance

payable

by

father to his son without determining monthly income of father and without taking into consideration evidence on record is illegal and liable to be set aside. Note: - the learned trial Court had left out of consideration

all

the

documentary exhibit D1 to D7 and Mark “D” and “E” and Divorce deed as well as oral evidence from where monthly income of the father could be very correctly determined. 15.

Sect. 5 read with

The columns of Nikah Nama

rule 10 Muslim Family

is to be filled in by the Nikah

Laws Ordinance 1961. Registrar with responsibility. Rule 10(1) The Nikah Registrar shall fill in form II in quadruplicate, in the Register, the persons whose

signatures are required in the Form, shall then sign and the Nikah Registrar shall then affix his register and seal thereto and keep the original

intact

in

the

Register. (2) The duplicate and triplicate of the Nika Nama filled in as aforesaid shall be supplied to the bride and bridegroom respectively on payment of 50 paisas each and the quadruplicate shall be forwarded to the Union Council. Note: - In view of the above rule, correctness of entries of Nikah Nama was to be proved

by

the

Nikah

Registrar who is supposed to have filled in the forms of Nikah. In

this

case,

Nikah

Registrar was not produced as a witness as such the best evidence was withheld, the presumption would go against the plaintiff who claims benefit out of Nikah Nama.

16.

Sect. 289

Proper Dower.

Muhammadan Law.

If the amount of dower is not fixed,

only

the

wife

is

entitled to proper dower. 17.

PLD 1992 SC.

Mere failure to exhibit a

822 at 823 (C).

document formally would not make any difference and if it was necessary for just decision of the case, it should be read in evidence. PETITIONER

Dated: -__________ (MUHAMMAD ASAD)

Through: ZAFAR IQBAL KHAN Advocate High Court, 124-District Courts, Multan.

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

W.P. No.______________/2000 Riaz Hussain S/o Haji Ghulam Hussain Caste Thaheem R/o Mauza Nai Wala, Tehsil & District Multan. Petitioner Versus 1. Manager Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, Branch Abdali Road, Nawan Sheher Multan. 2. Mobile Credit Officer Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, Branch Abdali Road, Nawan Sheher Multan. Respondents Writ Petition under Article 199 Of The Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Respectfully Sheweth: 1. That names and addresses of the parties have correctly been given in the Heading of the petition for the effective services of summons. 2. That petitioner is an agriculturist. He applied for loan from the Respondent Bank for the purchase of Tractor, seed and fertilizers. 3. That petitioner’s application was accepted by the respondent on 30.12.1997 and he sanctioned a loan of about Rs. 450,000/- in favour of the petitioner for the purchase of Tractor, seed and fertilizers etc. (Note: The correct loan amount figures will be given by the respondent Bank). 4. That for the security of loan, petitioner mortgaged his agricultural land with the respondent Bank. 5. That it may be mentioned here that Tractor so purchased was registered in the name of the respondent Bank although the actual possession of the tractor was handed over to the petitioner.

6. That the conditions for repayment of loan were that after the concession/lapse of complete first year, the loan was to be paid in six monthly installments of Rs. 28,000/- each i.e. by the end of June and by the end of December of every year. The whole period for repayment of complete loan is 8 years from the date the same was sanctioned/obtained. 7. That the petitioner’s first installment was due by the end of December 1998 and further after every six months. 8. That the petitioner paid installments rather before dates and much more amount than the due installments. The detail of which is given below: Installments paid Installment

Date of payment 30.12.1997

Amount paid 1st 59,700/-

2nd installment

08.01.1999

139,000/-

3rd Installment

09.01.1999

4,250/-

4th Installment

11.06.1999

176,600/-

5th Installment

12.06.1999

3,650/-

Total amount paid

383,200/-

Photocopies of receipts are attached as Annexes “A, A/1, A/2, A/3 & A/4”. 9. That as per conditions of the loan, the petitioner was bound to pay six monthly installments @ 28,000/- per installment from December 1998 to December 1999 (three in all) which comes to Rs. 84,000/- and as such in view of the above paid amount the petitioner has already paid Rs. 299,200/- more than it was due. 10.That the respondent Bank insists for payment of one installment of December 1999 without taking into consideration that the same has already been paid well before due date. 11.That unfortunately, virus disease spread in the area of petitioner and cotton crop of the petitioner was partly damaged and whatever was left it was sold on a very low rate due to wrong policy of the Govt. as the Govt. before the cotton crops has imported heavy quantity of cotton from the foreign country and as such there was left no demand for the cotton of this country

with the result that the petitioner and the other cotton growers suffered a great loss rendering them penniless. And as such the petitioner failed to pay the two installments for the year 1999 although if the amount already paid is considered then the over payment might be adjusted towards the two installments for the year 1999 and as such the petitioner could not be harassed for non-payment of the two installments for the year 1999 which in fact had already been paid before time. 12.That now the respondents have started harassing the petitioner for making recovery of the two installments through coercive measures. The respondents are bent upon to arrest the petitioner in case the one alleged installment is not paid forthwith. The petitioner requested the respondents for rendition of accounts, but genuine demand of the petitioner has not been acceded to by the respondents. Even they are not issuing any demand notice to the petitioner. 13.That in view of the over payment made by June 1999, the petitioner could not be held defaulter as the amount already paid fully covers the amount of one installment December 1999. However, petitioner undertakes to make payment of the said one installment in June and December 2000 in addition to the usual six monthly installments. 14.That the harassment and coercive actions being taken by the respondents against the petitioner are illegal and unwarranted by law. The period for repayment of loan is 8 years extended upto the year 2006 and the coercive measures adopted by the respondents for the recovery of outstanding amount of loan is totally illegal and unwarranted by law and they have no right and authority to take coercive measures without adopting the course of law. 15.

That the petitioner’s valuable land which is much more than sufficient to cover the entire loan amount is already mortgaged with the respondent Bank as security of loan. The tractor purchased with the loan amount is also registered in the name of respondent Bank and further petitioner has already been vigilant

in payment of installments rather more than it was due. In the circumstances it is cruel on the part of the respondents to take coercive measures and extreme step for recovery of outstanding loan by arresting and detaining the petitioner in jail. Such threatening steps of the respondents for the recovery of loan are without lawful authority in the circumstances. 1995 MLD P 12 is authority on the point. 16.That the petitioner requested the respondents so many times not to take any coercive measures and not to harass the petitioner and his other family members by creating mental torture so threats of putting him in jail but they are adamant to do so. 17.That the petitioner is now left with no alternate and efficacious remedy in law except to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may very graciously be pleased to accept the Writ Petition and direct the respondents not to take any coercive measures for the realization of loan amount till the months of June 2000 and December 2000. It is further prayed that any other appropriate relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit may also kindly be granted. Affidavit is attached herewith. Petitioner

Through: Zafar Iqbal Khan Advocate High Court, 124-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 2216 IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

W.P. No.______________/2000 Riaz Hussain

Vs

Manager A.D.B.P. etc.

AFFIDAVIT of: Riaz Hussain S/o Haji Ghulam Hussain Caste Thaheem R/o Mauza Nai Wala, Tehsil & District Multan.

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the above Writ Petition 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 23rd day of February 2000 that the contents of this affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. DEPONENT

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

C. M. No. ___________/2000 In

W.P. No.____________/2000 Riaz Hussain

Vs

Manager A.D.B.P. etc.

APPLICATION FOR DISPENSING WITH THE FILING OF CERTIFIED COPIES OF ANNEXURES. =========================================

Respectfully Sheweth:That certified copies of Annexures “A, A/1 to A/4” are not available. However, uncertified/photo state copies of the same have been annexed with the Petition, which are true copies of original documents. The original documents can be produced if required in Court. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble court may please dispense with the filing of aforesaid copies of documents. PETITIONER

Dated: 23.02.2000

Riaz Hussain

Through: Zafar Iqbal Khan Advocate High Court, 124-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 2216 IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

C. M. No. ___________/2000 In

W.P. No.____________/2000 Riaz Hussain

Vs

Manager A.D.B.P. etc.

Dispensation Application

Affidavit of: Riaz Hussain S/o Haji Ghulam Hussain Caste Thaheem R/o Mauza Nai Wala, Tehsil & District Multan. _______________ I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the above application 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 23rd day of February 2000 that the contents of this affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. DEPONENT

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

C. M. No. ___________/2000 In W.P. No.____________/2000

Riaz Hussain

Vs

Manager A.D.B.P. etc.

Stay Application Respectfully Sheweth: 1.

That the above titled petition has been filed in this Hon’ble Court.

2.

That the contents of the accompanying petition may kindly be read as integral part of this petition.

3.

That the petitioner is not defaulter. This petition is based on good grounds, which is likely to succeed.

4.

That in case the respondent is not restrained from adopting coercive measures for the recovery of undue installments, the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss.

5.

That the threat of the respondents of arresting the petitioner and putting him in jail is illegal and without lawful authority.

6.

That balance of convenience lies in favour of the petitioner. Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that pending final decision of the Writ Petition, the respondents may kindly be restrained from arresting the petitioner and adopting coercive measures for the recovery of alleged unpaid one installment for December 1999. Applicant Through: Zafar Iqbal Khan Advocate High Court, 124-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 2216

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

W.P. No.______________/2000 Mulazim Hussain S/o Haji Ghulam Hussain Caste Thaheem R/o Mauza Nai Wala, Tehsil & District Multan. Petitioner Versus 1. 2.

Manager Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, Branch Abdali Road, Nawan Sheher Multan. Mobile Credit Officer Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, Branch Abdali Road, Nawan Sheher Multan. Respondents Writ Petition under Article 199 Of The Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.

Date: 23.02.2000 Through: Zafar Iqbal Khan Advocate High Court, 124-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 2216

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

W.P. No.______________/2000 Riaz Hussain

Vs

Manager A.D.B.P. etc.

INDEX S. No. NAME OF DOCUMENTS

ANNEXURES PAGES

1

Urgent Form

2

Stamp Paper worth Rs. 500/-

3

Writ Petition.

4

Affidavit

5

Receipt dated 30.12.1997

A

6

Receipt dated 08.01.1999

A/1

7

Receipt dated 09.01.1999

A/2

8

Receipt dated 11.06.1999

A/3

9

Receipt dated 12.06.1999

A/4

10

Sanction Letter.

B

11

Dispensation Application.

12

Affidavit.

13

Application u/s 151 C.P.C.

14

Affidavit

15

Vakalatnama PETITIONER

Through: Zafar Iqbal Khan Advocate High Court, 124-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 2216 Before Member Board of Revenue, Lahore, Camp at Multan.

In re: Saleem Ahmad etc. Vs. Mst. Ruqaya Begum and others. R.O.R. No. 2019/96 Application for adjournment of Hearing Respected Sir, 1.

That the above captioned Revision Petition is fixed for today.

2.

That Mr. Zafar Iqbal Khan Advocate Counsel for respondents No. 1 to 5 is busy today in a notice case titled Muhammad Asad Khan Vs. Mst. Hayat Zeb-un-Nisa before the Hon’ble High Court, Multan Bench and on 24.2.2000 he is also busy in connection with two Writ Petition titled as Mulazim Hussain Vs. A.D.B.P. & Riaz Hussain Vs. A.D.B.P. Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that hearing of the abvoe R.O.R. may be adjourned to some other day. Applicants

Date: 23.02.2000 Mst. Ruqaya Begum etc. (Respondents No. 1 to 5)

Through: Zafar Iqbal Khan Advocate High Court, 124-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 2216

In the Court of Mr. Muhammad Akram Rana, Civil Judge, Multan.

Punjab Construction Company

Vs.

B.Z. University etc.

Suit for Recovery Application under orders 14, 5 C.P.C. Written Reply on behalf of Plaintiff/respondent.

Respectfully Sheweth: 1.

That Para No. 1 of the application is correct.

2.

That Para No. 2 of the application is correct.

3.

That Para No. 3 of the application being misconceived is incorrect. Issues No. 1, 2 & 3 had already been framed covering all the said three preliminary objections taken in the written statement and as such there is no need to frame further issues. Application is misconceived, the same is made with malafide intention to delay the disposal of the suit which is to be decided within a limited period as directed by the Hon’ble High Court. Application be dismissed with cost. Plaintiff/Respondent Dated: 24.02.2000

Through: Zafar Iqbal Khan Advocate High Court, 124-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 2216

IN THE COURT OF MR. IJAZ AHMAD CHADDHAR, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE.

(1) (2) (3)

Muhammad Asad Muhammad Asad Master Usama

Vs. Vs. Vs.

Humera Naz, Humera Naz etc. Muhammad Asad

Family Appeals Application for adjournment of hearing.

Respectfully Sheweth: 1.

That the above-captioned 3 appeals were fixed for 18.3.2000 which date happened to be Eid Holiday.

2.

That today dated 20.3.2000, being the next opening day, the appeals are supposed to be taken up for hearing.

3.

That Mr. Zafar Iqbal Khan advocate, Multan, Council for Muhammad Asad appellant is pre-occupied in a notice case FAO 13/1974 before the Hon’ble High Court, Multan Bench Multan and as such is unable to appear before this Hon’ble Court today. Original Notice of the High Court is attached herewith. Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that in the interest of justice, the hearing of the above 3 appeals may kindly be adjourned for some other date. Appellants

Dated: 20.3.2000 Through: Zafar Iqbal Khan Advocate High Court, 124-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 2216

My dear Shazia, I am much worried to know from you mother that your married life is still unsatisfactory. I think that I see your difficulty and it is this that you have developed a habit of negative attitude---an attitude of doubt and not good expectations. I advise you to keep your heart free from hate, your mind from worry, live simply, expect little, give much. Fill your life with love. Scatter sunshine, forget self and think of others. Do as you would be done by. Learn believing develop your habit of expecting the best, not the worst. Change your habit of belief and not disbelief. Learn to expect and not to doubt. When you trust in Allah, He guides your mind, so that you do not want things that are not good for you or that are inharmonious with Allah’s will. When you expect the best, you release a magic force in your mind, which by law of attraction tends to bring the best to you. But if you expect the worst, you release from your mind the power of repulsion which tends to force the best from you expecting the best means that you put your whole heart into what you want to accomplish. People are defeated in life not because of lack of ability but for lack of whole heartedness. Life cannot deny itself to the person who gives life his all. Do not be hold out. Go all out. Do this and life will not hold out on you. It is what is in your heart, either good or bad, strong or weak, that finally comes to you. As to your married life, it is not very happy. The reason is that you are really quite severe to your husband. Your such negative attitude represents a serious fault. I think your husband would have a difficult time if you checked him that closely all the time. In fact, you would so dominate him, but your marital life would be unsatisfactory. Love cannot live under domination. I must say you have a very fine way of pressing your lips together which indicates a domineering attitude. The average male does not like to be dominated.

By grace of Allah, you have got a charming personality, but due to your negative thinking, you wear hard lines on your face. You must have a little softness, a little tenderness. Your dress, it needs not be expensive, but it should be well tailored and well worn. You may also add a little sweet smelling perfume. But, the really important thing is to get a new attitude that will change the lines on your face and give you that indefinable quality and charm known as spiritual joy. This will make you release charm & loveliness in you. There is an old saying that “God runs a beauty parlour”. I explain it, you might have seen in college girls, who were very pretty. But when you met her after 20 years or so, their beauty is faded. On the other hand, other girls came to college who were very plain, but when they returned thirty years later, they are beautiful women. What made the difference. The latter had the beauty of an inner spiritual life written on their faces. This is –“God runs a beauty parlour”. Face is the index of mind. If your thinking is positive, your face will reveal charm, if you think in negative, your face will show negative lines. I hope you shall be intelligent enough to understand this point, which is a hard reality. With best wishes. Your loving father.