IN THE COURT OF MIAN RIAZ KHURRAM, CIVIL JUDGE,

MULTAN.

Qaswar Abbas etc. Vs. P.C.G.A. etc.

SUIT FOR DECLARATION.

Written Statement on behalf of defendants.

Respectfully Sheweth: -
Preliminary Objections: -
1. That the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file this suit
against the defendants.

2. That the plaintiffs have no locus standi, even, to file the suit
against the defendants.

3. That the plaintiffs are legally debarred to file this suit with
reference to Sec-9 (2) (d) of the Trade Organization
Ordinance, 1961.

4. That the plaint is not competent keeping in view the essence

of Sec-12 of the Trade Organization Ordinance, 1961.

5. That the plaint is not competent keeping in view the letter &
spirit of Sec-15 of the Trade Organization Ordinance, 1961.

6. That in view of the Trade Organization Ordinance, 1961, this

Hon’ble Court lacks the jurisdiction to try, even, to entertain
the lis between the parties.

7. That the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11

C.P.C.
8. That the suit was being filed for a remedy upto limited period
and the cut date mentioned in the plaint has already been
passed, so the suit became infructuous and redundant.

9. That the suit is based on frivolous and vexatious reasons and

grounds, so, liable to be dismissed having no force.

10. That the plaintiffs are estopped by their words and conduct to
file this suit.

11. That the defendants are entitled for the special cost under
section 35-A of C.P.C.

ON MERITS: -

1. That para No. 1 is admitted as correct, being legal one, having

no need to reply.

2. That para No. 2 is admitted as correct, being legal one, having

no need to reply.

3. That para No. 3 is irrelevant at present and having no

connection with the cause of action for this lis.

4. That para No. 4 of the plaint is correct, without having any

comments upon the writ petition referred in this para.

5. That para No. 5 of the plaint is admitted as correct, however,

the name of Khalid Maqbool is wrongly mentioned instead of
Khalid Qayyum and two members namely Mqabool Ahmad
and Ramesh Lal are missing to secure the names of ten
members. The defendant No. 2 was elected by the ratio of 6:4.

6. That para No. 6 is admitted as correct and needs no comments.

7. That para No. 7 of the plaint is not admitted as correct, even

the facts are not only wrongly mentioned, but concealed as
well. It is pertinent to point out that an ad-hoc committee was
constituted under the Trade Organization Ordinance, 1961 in
the letter dated 12.3.02 issued by the Director of Trade
Organization; and in the same letter it was ordered to elect a
convener by the election of said ad-hoc committee. On the
 direction of Director, T.O. an election was held and defendant
No. 2 was elected as convener with the ratio of 6:4. In the said
letter, it was obligatory that any member of ad-hoc committee,
if interested to participate in the elections, managed and
arranged by the ad-hoc committee shall submit his resignation
on the announcement of election schedule. The plaintiffs
being the members of ad-hoc committee were legally bound to
submit their resignations to the secretary of P.C.G.A. on
3.7.2002, the date of announcement of election schedule. But,
on 31.7.2002, abruptly the plaintiffs filed their nomination
papers for the seats of member Central/Circle Executive in
violation of letter dated 12.3.02. These nomination papers
were duly objected by the scrutinizer namely Rao Sadar-ud-
Din appointed under article 36 (c) of the Memorandum &
Articles of Association of P.C.G.A. raised objections, on
1.8.02, however, to meet with the objections the plaintiffs then
and there produced the original copies of their resignations
having no previous record of submission of resignations as
referred in the Director’s letter on the date of announcement of
election schedule, 3.7.02. However, the order dated 2.8.2002
for accepting the nomination papers of plaintiffs is not
confirmatory with the election rules, directions and
programme.

8. That para No. 8 is admitted as correct, being a legal one.

9. That para No. 9 of the plaint is admitted as correct being a

legal one.

10. That para No. 10 of the plaint is correct upto the extent that
there is no provision of appeal regarding the election matters
in the Articles of Association of P.C.G.A. But, this fact is
mentioned to misguide and mislead this Hon’ble Court.
Because, the ad-hoc committee has to frame election rules as
well; and in these election rules circulated vide Circular No. 3,
Karachi, dated 18.7.02 has proper provision for filing of
appeal under rule 7 is provided. Whereas at the time of
 announcement of election schedule, the date for filing of
appeal and hearing of appeal were mentioned as 13.8.02 and
19.8.02 respectively. The nomination papers of the plaintiffs
were rightly rejected on the just and logical reasons.

11. That para No. 11 including the grounds is incorrect, the order
dated 19.8.02 passed by the appellate committee was not only
well reasoned, but also legal one.

GROUNDS

A) That the ground taken is incorrect. The fact of filing the

appeal and date of hearing was very well in the
knowledge of plaintiffs. Because the appellate
committee have to decide a technical question, so there
was no need of arguments and actually, it was a matter
of scrutiny of record. However, both the parties remain
present at the time of disposal of appeals.

B) That the ground taken is incorrect. The detailed reply is

given in reply of ground A.

C) That the ground taken is incorrect. The detailed reply is

given in reply of para No. 10 of plaint.

D) That the ground taken is incorrect. The detailed reply is

given in reply of para No. 10 of plaint.

E) That the ground taken is incorrect. The version of

plaintiffs in this ground has no footing, because the fact
of submission of resignation on 3.7.02 was not
corroborated by the record.

F) That the ground taken is incorrect. The decision of

appeal is based on the documents and the documents
never tell lie, but man can.

G) That the ground taken is incorrect. The plaintiffs under

the cover of litigation, are going to sabotage the process
of elections.
 H) That the ground taken is incorrect. The conduct and
behaviour of the plaintiffs is against the letter and spirit
of orders passed by Hon’ble High Court and Director
Trade Organization.

I) That the ground taken is incorrect. However, in

compliance of order passed by this Hon’ble Court, the
plaintiffs were allowed to participate in election held on
31.8.2002 as requested.

12. That para No. 12 needs no reply/comments.

13. That para No. 13 is incorrect. However the suit is not

competent.

14. That para No. 14 is incorrect. The plaintiffs have no cause of

action.

15. That para No. 15 is incorrect. This Hon’ble Court has no

jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit in hand.

16. That para No. 16 is legal and needs no reply.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the plaint

may please be rejected and suit may please be
dismissed with cost.
Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems
fit and proper may also be awarded to the defendants.

Humble Defendants,

Dated: __________
Through: -
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20176

Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan this 23rd day of
September 2002 that all the contents of the
above-titled written statements are true and
correct to the best of our knowledge and belief.
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF MIAN RIAZ KHURRAM, CIVIL JUDGE,
MULTAN.

Qaswar Abbas etc. Vs. P.C.G.A. etc.

Stay Application

Written Statement on behalf of defendants.

Respectfully Sheweth: -
Preliminary Objections: -

1. That the applicants have no cause of action to file this application

against the respondents.

2. That the applicants have no locus standi, even, to file this

application against the respondents.

3. That in view of the Trade Organization Ordinance, 1961, this

Hon’ble Court lacks the jurisdiction to try even to entertain the lis
between the parties.

4. That the application was being filed for a remedy upto period and
the cut date mentioned in the plaint has already been passed, so
the application became infructuous and redundant.

ON MERITS: -

1. That para No. 1 of the application is formal and needs no reply

and comments.

2. That para No. 2 is incorrect. The applicant has no prima facie

case and hope of applicants is not admissible under the law.
3. That para No. 3 is incorrect, the impugned order is legal and well
reasoned, even illegal order could not be challenged before this
Hon’ble Court in view of the provision of Trade Organization
Ordinance, 1961.

4. That para No. 4 is incorrect. However, the applicants were

allowed to take part in the elections scheduled on 31.8.02 as
requested by the applicants and ordered by the court.

5. That para No. 5 of the application is incorrect. Balance of

convenience and justice leans in favour of the litigants coming
with clean hands in the court of law.

6. That para No. 6 is formal and needs no reply and comments.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the application

in hand is merit-less and may please be dismissed with
cost.

Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems

fit and proper may also be awarded to the defendants.

Humble Respondents,

Dated: __________

Through: -
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20176
IN THE COURT OF MIAN RIAZ KHURRAM, CIVIL JUDGE,
MULTAN.

Qaswar Abbas etc. Vs. P.C.G.A. etc.

Application

Written Statement on behalf of defendants.

AFFIDAVIT of: -

Rao Sadr-ud-Din Member Legal Committee (for

election purposes) P.C.G.A.

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm

and declare as under: -

1. That the above-titled reply of application is being filed

before this Hon’ble Court today, the contents of which
may please be treated as part and parcel of this affidavit.

2. That all the contents of this affidavit are true and correct
to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has
been kept concealed thereto.

DEPONENT