BEFORE ZAFAR IQBAL SIAL, LEARNED CJ, LAHORE

M/s Abacus Consulting Technology (Private) Limited

VERSUS
Farhan Rashid and another
APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 4 AND SECTION 151 CPC ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
NO.1/DEFENDANT NO.1

REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF COMPANY

RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:
REPLY ON MERITS:
1. Admitted.
2. Denied for want of knowledge.
3. That the allegations leveled against the Respondent/Plaintiff in para under reply
are vehemently denied. It is submitted that there is no infringement of
fundamental rights of Petitioner No.1/Defendant No.1 as alleged. It is specifically
denied that the employment contract is void for any alleged reason. In this regard,
it is submitted that the employment contract has been accepted and duly signed by
the Petitioner No.1/Defendant No.1. Moreover, the terms and conditions of his
service were governed by the said employment contract and he has been receiving
all kinds of emoluments and benefits under the same contract. The Petitioner
No.1/Defendant No.1 should have raised objection, if any, against the
employment contract at the time of acceptance. Petitioner No.1/Defendant No.1
cannot wriggle out of the terms of the employment contact at this juncture on the
pretext that it has now become void on account of its being in restraint of trade.
4. That the averments contained in para under reply being baseless are vehemently
denied.
5. That the allegations leveled against the Respondent/Plaintiff in para under reply
are vehemently denied. It is specifically denied that the Respondent/Plaintiff had
been involved in any alleged nefarious activities or the instant suit has been filed
with ill intentions, mala fide or to blackmail the Defendants. The Petitioners/
Defendants are put to strict proof in this regard.

6. That the averments contained in para under reply are vehemently denied. In this
regard, it is submitted that the negative covenant of the permanent employment
contract sought to be enforced by the Respondent/Plaintiff cannot in any manner
be termed to be infringing the fundamental rights of the Petitioner No.2/Petitioner
No.1/Defendant No.1. Without prejudice to any of the rights of the
Respondent/Plaintiff, it is submitted that the Respondent/Plaintiff has not prayed
from this Learned Court to restrain the Petitioner/Defendant to carry on any trade,
business or profession. The Respondent/Plaintiff has only prayed to restrain the
Petitioner No.1/Defendant No.1 to carry on a competitive job/business with the
Petitioner No.2/Defendant No.2 that is in accordance with permanent employment
contract. Annexure A and B annexed with the suit make it palpably clear that
Petitioner No.2/Defendant No.2 is engaged in the competing business against the
Respondent/Plaintiff Company. Therefore, the Petitioner No.1/Defendant No.1
was under an obligation to observe the negative covenant in the employment
contract and breach on his part has constrained the Respondent/Plaintiff to seek its
enforcement through this Learned Court.
7. That the averments contained in para under reply are denied for the reason that
they do not apply to the instant case.
8. That the allegations leveled against the Respondent/Plaintiff in para under reply
are vehemently denied. In fact, the acts of Petitioner No.1/Defendant No.1 were
tainted with mala fide intentions, which is evident from his abrupt surreptitious
departure from the Plaintiff Company and subsequently joining Petitioner
No.2/Defendant No.2 immediately afterwards. Such blatant act, whereby a person
after acquiring advanced knowledge and skill at the expense of one person
subsequently joins another person in breach of the ethics and morality, should be
reprimanded by the courts of law by passing akin restraining orders against such
persons. It is denied that Petitioner No.1/Defendant No.1 handed over the suit
material at the time of his departure. This is evident from the contents of para
under reply. Petitioner No.1/Defendant No.1 left the Respondent/Plaintiffs job
while he was in Karachi therefore there arises no question of returning the suit
material. Furthermore, It is vehemently denied that the Respondent/Plaintiff has
filed the instant suit maliciously.
9. That the averments contained in para under reply except admissions are
vehemently denied. In this regard it is submitted that Petitioner No.1/Defendant
No.1 did not hand over the SAS CDs and other material subject matter of the suit.
The Petitioner No.1/Defendant No.1 is put to strict proof in this regard. To further
contradict the averments contained in para under reply the contents of para 8
above are reiterated here.

10. That the allegations leveled against the Respondent/Plaintiff in para under reply
are vehemently denied. The contents of above para are reiterated here.
11. That the averments contained in para under reply except admissions are
vehemently denied. The Petitioner No.1/Defendant No.1 is put to strict proof in
this regard. The Petitioner No.1/Defendant No.1 took away with him the suit
material at the time of his departure and it can very well be anticipated that he is
using such material for commercial purposes and deriving gains from its use. It is
specifically denied that the Plaintiff has leveled any vexatious, baseless and
frivolous allegations against Petitioner No.1/Defendant No.1. Furthermore, the
Petitioners have admitted in sub-para (iii) that Petitioner NO.2/Defendant No.2 is
engaged in a competitive business against the Plaintiff, which is sufficient to
establish that this Learned Court has rightly granted the interim injunction against
the Petitioners. It is specifically denied that the Respondent/Plaintiff acted
unlawfully, illegally or in vexatious manner or the suit has been filed to blackmail
the Petitioners/Defendants. Contents of para 6,8 and 10 above are reiterated here.

Prayer
IN view of foregoing submissions, it is respectfully prayed that the instant application
having no merits may kindly be dismissed with costs.

Respondent/Plaintiff
through
SALMAN AKRAM RAJA
MA(Cambridge) LL.M (Harvard)
Advocate High Court

WASIF MAJEED
Advocate
33-C, Main Gulberg, Lahore.