Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Zafar Khan1
Zafar Khan1
Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. The above captioned two appeals are pending adjudication
before this Hon’ble Court in which next date of hearing is
fixed as 1/10/99 for notice to the Respondents.
Yours obediently,
AFFIDAVIT of: -
Zafar Iqbal Advocate High Court, Multan.
DEPONENT
Verification: -
DEPONENT
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE.
Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That the petitioner and respondent No. 1 married together at
Chaniyot Tehsil & District Jhang on 21.10.94. Respondent
No. 2, the only issue, was born on 26.9.95 out of the wedlock.
Thereafter, the petitioner, through a written divorce deed
dated 12.2.98, divorced irrevocably to respondent No. 1 by
pronouncing “Talaq” thrice in one sitting. Photocopy of
written divorce deed is attached as Annexure “A”.
3. That the petitioner contested both the suits. The learned Judge,
Family Court consolidated both the suits and framed
following consolidated issues on 20.3.99: -
No. 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for
maintenance allowance; if so, at what rate and for which
period. OPP.
No. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for
recovery of dower amount of Rs. 105,000/- as prayed for.
OPP.
No. 3. Relief.
GROUNDS
iv) That suit for maintenance of the minor child was also
not maintainable, as there was no refusal or neglect on
the part of he father/petitioner to maintain his child.
Respondent No. 1 had admitted before court that
petitioner had paid her Rs. 15,000/- as maintenance
allowance for the child after his birth. It was further
admitted by respondent No. 1 that gold ornaments
weighing 40 Tolas were also given to her by the
petitioner at the time of marriage. This was explained
by the petitioner that on the asking of her parents, these
ornaments were given to her not as a gift, but just to
enhance the prestige of her family in the “Bradri” of the
respondent and these ornaments were returnable to the
petitioner afterwards. But admittedly, these ornaments,
the price of which is Rs. 250,000/- are with the
respondent No. 1 which amount is more than sufficient
for the maintenance of child even till he attains
majority. The learned Court below had failed to take
note of these material admissions of the respondent No.
1 and as such had failed to exercise jurisdiction vested
in them.
viii) That Mr. Zafar Iqbal Khan advocate counsel for the
petitioner/defendant in the maintenance suit and appeal
had referred as many as 19 authorities and provisions of
law and handed over to the learned judges Photostat
copies of these authorities and legal references with a
typed index to facilitate their perusal. But the learned
judges had failed to consider, refer or discuss these
authorities in their judgments. Had the learned judges
perused these authorities, the judgments would have
been different. Copy of the typed index of authorities
referred to is attached with this petition.
Petitioner,
Through: -
Zafar Iqbal Khan,
Advocate High Court,
124-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 2216.
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE.
Affidavit of: -
Muhammad Asad S/o Maher Allah Bakhsh, caste Siyal
Bharwana, R/o Mauza Satiana, Tehsil & District Jhang.
DEPONENT
Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day
of April 2000 that the contents of this affidavit
are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
DEPONENT
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE.
Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That the above captioned petition has been filed before this
Hon’ble Court.
7. That the respondents No. 1 and 2 are bent upon to get the
petitioner arrested forthwith through execution of decree.
Humble Applicant
Through: -
Zafar Iqbal Khan,
Advocate High Court,
124-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 2216.
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE.
Stay Application
Affidavit of: -
Muhammad Asad S/o Maher Allah Bakhsh, caste Siyal
Bharwana, R/o Mauza Satiana, Tehsil & District Jhang.
DEPONENT
Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day
of April 2000 that the contents of this affidavit
are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
DEPONENT
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE.
Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That the appellant and respondent No. 1 were married
together on 21.10.94 at Chaniyot Tehsil & District Jhang.
Appellant at the time of Nikah fixed Rs. 5,000/- as prompt
dower only.
7. That the judgment and decree of both the courts being the
result of misreading of document ExP1 Nikah Nama, is illegal
and without lawful authority.
Through: -
Zafar Iqbal Khan,
Advocate High Court,
124-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 2216.
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE.
Affidavit of: -
Muhammad Asad S/o Maher Allah Bakhsh, caste Siyal
Bharwana, R/o Mauza Satiana, Tehsil & District Jhang.
DEPONENT
Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day
of April 2000 that the contents of this affidavit
are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
DEPONENT
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE.
Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That the above captioned petition has been filed before this
Hon’ble Court.
Humble Applicant
Through: -
Zafar Iqbal Khan,
Advocate High Court,
124-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 2216.
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE.
Stay Application
Affidavit of: -
Muhammad Asad S/o Maher Allah Bakhsh, caste Siyal
Bharwana, R/o Mauza Satiana, Tehsil & District Jhang.
DEPONENT
Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day
of April 2000 that the contents of this affidavit
are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
DEPONENT
IN THE COURT OF CH. MUSHTAQ AHMAD
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MULTAN.
CIVIL APPEAL
List of Books referred to on behalf of respondents.
S.No.
1 1980 CLC 1878 (C),
2 PLJ 1982 Lah 356 (ii) &
3 PLD 1991 AJK 66 Held: Declaratory Suit on the basis
(B & C) of inheritance with consequential
relief of possession, held, matter
governed by section 7 (iv) (c) of the
Court Fee Act.
Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That the above captioned suit is pending before this Hon’ble
Court in which next date is fixed as 6.6.2000.
2. That the defendant had no knowledge of the institution of this
suit nor service of notice was effected on him. It is only a day
before when he reached home from Karachi were he had been
in connection with his business since about a month, when he
came to know about the institution of the above suit. This
application is being submitted without any loss of time, hence
within time from the date of knowledge.
3. That the applicant had paid the principle amount in
installments within very short intervals and it seems that the
plaintiff bank illegally adjusted it towards the interest/mark-
up. The statements of accounts from Feb 1991uptil now are
not correct and need to be proved and corrected.
4. That it has been declared by the Federal Shariat Court, also by
the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
that mark-up is also a kind of ‘Riba’ which is “Haram” and as
such directed the repeal of interest act and declared that the
act shall cease to have effect from 31st March 2000.
In view of the above repeal, no court in Pakistan can
decree any amount in the name of interest.
5. That in case the interest is deleted, nothing would be left
towards the Principal amount which is paid, rather it would be
found that the payments made by the applicant would be over
and above the Principal amount.
PLD 1992 FSC I, PLD 2000 SC 225, PLD 1987 466,
PLD 1989 K 304 are relied upon.
6. That no presumption of truth is attached to the statement of
account as held by a D.B. of the Lahore High Court in a case
2000 CLC 847.
Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that this
application be allowed and applicant be permitted to
defend the suit interalia on the above grounds.
Affidavit is attached.
Applicant/Defendant
Through: -
Zafar Iqbal Khan,
Advocate High Court,
124-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 2216.
IN THE COURT OF CH. MUHAMMAD MASOOD AKHTAR
KHAN, JUDGE BANKING COURT NO. III, MULTAN.
Affidavit of: -
Muhammad Jameel Shah S/o Muhammad Yamin Shah,
R/o Shop No. 94/RH Ward No. 5 Kalay Mandi Inside
Bohar Gate, Multan.
DEPONENT
Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day
of June 2000 that the contents of this affidavit are
true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
DEPONENT
To,
The District Manager/Manager Recovery,
H.B.F.C., Multan.
Dear Sir,
In reply to your Notice dated 8.8.2000 for recovery of Rs.
65,211/-, copy of which is attached, it is submitted that I have
already paid whole amount of loan along-with simple interest as per
decision of the court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Multan dated
31.7.95. After rendition of account, the learned court found that legal
notice then issued to me by the H.B.F.C. was illegal and that in
addition to the amount already paid a further sum of Rs. 29,178/-
only is due and directed me to pay the same before 30.9.95, which
amount was deposited by me in the account of H.B.F.C. on 24.9.95
and as such the whole amount is paid and nothing is due. Copy of
Judgment & Decree of the learned Senior Civil Judge and copy of
receipt of Rs. 29,178/- is attached herewith.
Against the judgment and decree, H.B.F.C. filed an appeal in
the court of District Judge, Multan which appeal was dismissed on
7.12.97. No further action was taken by the H.B.F.C. and judgment
and decree of the learned Senior Civil Judge has attained finality.
In view of the above facts, your present notice is illegal
and amounts to contempt of court. You are requested in your
own interest to issue me clearance certificate and return my
papers and depledge my property within a period of one
month, failing which I shall be constrained against you to
contempt proceedings.
Sincerely yours,
Dated: 4.9.2000
Zafar Iqbal Khan,
Advocate
H.No. 888-43-K/4
Usmanabad, Multan.
IN THE COURT OF MR. JAHANGIR ALI SHEIKH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, PUNJAB LABOUR COURT NO. 9,
MULTAN.
1. Chief Engineer.
2. The Superintending Engineer.
3. The Executive Engineer.
Applicants
Versus
Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That petition No. 115/99 U/s 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969 was
pending before this Hon’ble Court in which date of hearing of
stay application was fixed as 26.6.2000, but due to non-
appearance of the respondents, they were proceeded against
ex-parte and thereafter on 31.7.2000, ex-parte judgment was
given whereby the petition U/s 25-A of the I.R.O. was
allowed.
2. That the applicants came to know of this ex-parte judgment
only a day before when the decree holder produced the ex-
parte judgment for implementation. Hence this application.
3. That the applicants, being Govt. servants in the Irrigation
Department, they were duty bound to remain on the site of the
river flooded area to make arrangements to save the zone from
flood destruction, during the flood season commencing from
the months from 1st June to 15 October and as such non-
appearance of the applicants during this period was not
intentional but due to being over busy in the work of public
importance.
4. That keeping in view this difficulty, Government engaged Mr.
Zafar Iqbal Khan advocate to pursue the case.
5. That realising the above-mentioned difficulty of the
applicants, Mr. Zafar Iqbal Khan advocate promised to inform
the applicants as to wen their personal appearance before the
court is necessary.
6. That on 26.5.2000, applicants’ counsel was present in the
Court when next date was fixed as 26.6.2000 for arguments
on the stay application. The counsel entered this date on his
envelope but unfortunately, his clerk inadvertently missed to
enter the date in the diary of cases and as such the brief of the
case could not be put up before him an evening before the
date and therefore, the counsel in the rush of work forgot the
case. The non-appearance of the counsel in the court was not
intentional but due to non-entry of the case in his diary of the
cases.
7. That the valuable right of the Govt. is injured by the ex-parte
judgment and in case the ex-parte judgment is not set aside,
the department shall have to face great difficulty as the
finance department of Govt. of Punjab has not sanctioned any
regular or temporary posts of Baildars/Chowkidar. The
petitioners are being paid from maintenance and repair budget
for flood embankment. They are being paid against the works
of the division on work charge basis and after completion of
the periodical flood time maintenance work, their services
could become redundant. Mere fact that they have served for
more than nine months could not make them a permanent
work-man. In absence of any right guaranteed, their could be
no grievance and as such the petition under section 25-A of
the I.R.O. was not maintainable.
Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that in the
interest of justice, the order dated 26.6.2000 of ex-parte
proceedings against the applicants and the ex-parte
judgment dated 31.7.2000 may kindly be set aside and
after giving the applicants opportunity to contest, the
case be decided on merits.
Affidavits of one of the applicants and of Zafar
Iqbal Khan advocate counsel for the applicants and
Photostate copies of the envelope and counsel’s case
diary are attached herewith.
Applicants
1. ____________
3. ____________
Through: -
Zafar Iqbal Khan,
Advocate
H.No. 888-43-K/4
Usmanabad, Multan.
AFFIDAVIT of: -
Zafar Iqbal Advocate High Court, Multan,
C.C. No. 2216.
DEPONENT
Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this_____
day of September, 2000 that the contents of this
affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge and
belief.
DEPONENT
IN THE COURT OF MR. JAHANGIR ALI SHEIKH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, PUNJAB LABOUR COURT NO. 9,
MULTAN.
AFFIDAVIT of: -
Muhammad Nasrullah Bhatti, the Executive Engineer,
posted under the Executive Engineer River Diversion
Division, Baseera District Muzaffargarh.
DEPONENT
Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this_____
day of September, 2000 that the contents of this
affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge and
belief.
DEPONENT
IN THE COURT OF JUDGE SPECIAL BANKING COURT,
MULTAN.
……PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
…..DEFENDANT
Respectfully Sheweth: -
3. That, however, the above mentioned loan was paid back to the
defendant in the following installments: -
10. That such demand of the defendant is illegal and against the
spirit of concessional scheme offered by him.
12. That cause of action firstly arose a week before when the
plaintiff wanted to make payment of the remaining above said
amount and defendant refused to abide by his own offer of
concessional scheme.
13. That loan facility was availed in Multan, its repayment was to
be made in Multan, and defendant’s office is situated in
Multan, hence, this Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to entertain
the present suit.
Through: -
Zafar Iqbal Khan,
Advocate
H.No. 888-43-K/4
Usmanabad, Multan.
Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan this ____
day of November 2000 that all the
contents of the above plaint are true
and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief.
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF JUDGE SPECIAL BANKING COURT,
MULTAN.
Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That the above captioned suit has been filed before this
Hon’ble court.
2. That the averments made in the suit may be read as part of this
application.
Through: -
Zafar Iqbal Khan,
Advocate
H.No. 888-43-K/4
Usmanabad, Multan.
IN THE COURT OF JUDGE SPECIAL BANKING COURT,
MULTAN.
STAY APPLICATION
AFFIDAVIT of: -
DEPONENT
Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this_____
day of November, 2000 that the contents of this
affidavit are true & correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief.
DEPONENT
IN THE COURT OF MR. MEHMOOD HAROON ESQUIRE
CIVIL JUDGE, IST CLASS, MULTAN.
Issue No. 7:
Whether Sale Deed was executed by Malik Allah Yar
in favour of the defendant lawfully & with
consideration. OPD.
Issue No. 4: -
Whether value of suit not properly fixed. OPD
22. 1980 CLC 1878 c Court Fees Act, S.7 (iv) (c)---
Suit for declaratory decree
and consequential relief---
main relief being that of
declaration base on ownership
on basis of inheritance---relief
for possession sought only
consequentially---matter,
held, governed by section
7(iv) c---value already put by
plaintiff, held further, would
remain value for purpose
court fee in appeal as well---
Specific Relief Act, S.42
23. PLD 1991 AJK 66 Court Fee Act , S.7 (iv) (c)---
Specific Relief Act, S.42---
Court fee payable on suit for
declaration and consequential
relief of possession---where
plaintiff could not ask for
main relief of possession
without asking for a
declaration, such suit would
be one for declaration with
consequential relief for
possession---suit in such a
case would be covered by
provision of 7 (iv) (c) Court
Fee Act---where from the
nature of the suit,
consequential relief could be
allowed only when plaintiff
through declaration from
competent court had
succeeded in removing by
other obstacle then in such
like cases declaration would
be the real necessity for
obtaining the real relief from
the court.
Referred to by: -
Zaffar Iqbal Khan,
Advocate,
Counsel for the plaintiff.
Dated: 29.9.2000
IN THE COURT OF DEPUTY LAND COMMISSIONER,
MULTAN.
1. Habib Khan
2. Allah Wasaya Ss/o Muhammad Ramzan
3. Muhammad Nawaz
4. Haq Nawaz
5. Barkhurdar Ss/o Muhammad Bukhsh
6. Fazil
7. Imam Bukhsh
8. Sardar Muhammad Ss/o Khan Muhammad
9. Ameer Bukhsh
10.Ahmad Bukhsh
11.Ramzan Ss/o Lal Khan
12.Allah Yar Ss/o Muhammad Bukhsh
13.Barkhurdar Both deceased represented by
their legal heirs.
12-A. Ramzan
12-B. Ahmad Bukhsh Ss/o Lal Khan.
14.Muhammad Hussain
15.Muhammad Sadiq Ss/o Karim Bukhsh
16.Muhammad Nawaz
17.Rahim Bukhsh deceased S/o Barkhurdar, represented by his legal
heirs.
17.A. Muhammad Fazil
17.B. Muhammad Babar Sons
17.C. Ghulam Fatima
17.D. Nusrat Parween Daughters
17.E. Bharanwan Mai ------ Widow
Caste Jat Sial, R/o Mouza Lutfabad, Tehsil and District
Multan.
…………..Plaintiffs
VERSUS
Haji Muhammad Hayat Khan S/o Ahmad Khan, caste Jat, Bosan,
R/o Mouza Bosan Tehsil Multan.
…………Respondent
Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That Mst. Sahib Khatoon, the predecessor-in-interest of the
respondent, was a declarant under the Land Reforms Act,
1977.
2. That in the first instance her holding was determined by the
Deputy Land Commissioner, Multan, vide his order dated
28.6.1977, to the extent of 8973 p.i.u.s and the excess land
equivalent to 973 p.i.us. was resumed in favour of Land
Commission vide Mutation No. 503 dated 24.3.79. (Copy
Annex “A”).
Dated: __________
Through: -
Zafar Iqbal Khan,
Advocate
124-District Courts,
Multan.
IN THE COURT OF DEPUTY LAND COMMISSIONER,
MULTAN.
STAY APPLICATION.
Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That the above captioned petition has been filed before this
Hon’ble Court.
2. That the land surrounded by Mst. Sahib Khatoon, predecessor
in interest of the respondent, was neither owned nor possessed
by her. The said land had already been sold by her in favour of
the petitioners vide Mutation No. 626 dated 21.11.80 and they
are in possession of the said land as owner since then.
3. That the petitioners are now being threatened by the Revenue
Field Staff for surrendering possession of the Land
Commission. In case they are deprived of their possession of
land, they shall suffer irreparable loss as loss of possession
has already been considered by the higher courts as
irreparable loss.
4. That petitioners being owner in possession of the land well
before the re-opening of the case, as such their present
petition is very likely to be accepted. Balance of convenience
also tilts in favour of the petitioners.
Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that order be
passed not to interfere in ownership and possessory
rights of the petitioners till disposal of this petition.
Affidavit attached.
Petitioners/Applicants
Dated: __________
Through: -
Zafar Iqbal Khan,
Advocate
124-District Courts,
Multan.
IN THE COURT OF DEPUTY LAND COMMISSIONER,
MULTAN.
STAY APPLICATION.
Affidavit of: -
Habib Khan S/o Muhammad Ramzan, caste Jat Sial,
R/o Mouza Lutfabad, Tehsil & District Multan.
DEPONENT
Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day
of October 2000 that the contents of this affidavit
are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
DEPONENT