Sie sind auf Seite 1von 5

IN THE COURT OF KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD AJMAL CIVIL

JUDGE 1ST CLASS, KOT ADDU, DISTRICT MUZAFFARGARH.

Hafeez Ullah Vs. Kot Addu Power Co. Ltd. etc.

SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT


INJUNCTION.

Written statement on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3.

Respectfully Sheweth: -
Preliminary Objections: -
1. That the suit is not maintainable in its present form, hence,
liable to be rejected.
2. That the plaintiff has got no cause of action against the
answering defendants to file the present suit.
3. That the plaintiff did not approach this Hon’ble Court with
clean hands, suit is based on concocted facts and malafide,
hence, liable to be rejected.
4. That the plaintiff filed the above-titled suit with malafide
intention to blackmail the answering defendants to pressurise
the defendants. Hence, suit is liable to be rejected.
5. That this Hon’ble Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the
suit, hence, suit is liable to be rejected. Plaintiff is Civil
Servant for the purpose of Service Tribunal Act and question
relates to terms and conditions of employment which this
Hon’ble Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate.
6. That in the light of clause 56 (d) of Specific Relief Act stay
cannot be granted to the plaintiff as he has no locus standi to
file the instant suit.
7. That plaint is liable to be rejected due to non-joinder and mis-
joinder of parties.

Reply on facts: -
1. That the contents of para No. 1 are not admitted as stated. The
plaintiff is not working as a fitter in PBS-11 from 1988, but
only with effect from . It is correct that he was
allotted E267 & E268 in 1997, which were cancelled on his
own request vide application dated 12.3.2001. The plaintiff
has already been allotted E-223 with his consent.
2. That in reply to the contents of para No. 2, it is submitted that
plaintiff does not stand entitled for D type quarter. The fact
remains that after the cancellation of E267 & E268, the above
houses were allotted to one Mr. Tahir Hafeez. Mr. Hafeez
Ullah continued to occupy one house E-267 by paying rent of
Rs. 1000/- to Mr. Tahir Hafeez. The intention behind this was
to save the house rent and electricity charges. When it came to
the knowledge of the management that several quarters are
subletted to other employees, the defendants affixed notices to
this effect that the subletting of houses is not according to the
policy, therefore, same should be avoided. Mr. Tahir Hafeez
also informed in writing, he asked Mr. Hafeez Ullah to vacate
the quarter. Instead of vacating the quarter, Mr. Hafeez Ullah
extended threats to Mr. Tahir Hafeez. Mr. Tahir Hafeez
reported the matter to the management through applications
dated 2.1.2002, 16.1.2002 & 19.1.2002. That on the
complaints of Mr. Tahir Hafeez, the plaintiff vacated the
illegal occupation and then applied for allotment of double F
type quarter through application dated 6.3.2002. The
management with plaintiff’s consent, by giving option to him
to choose from the available vacant houses, allotted quarter
No. E-223, which is superior to F type quarters. His
application dated 6.3.2002 clearly states and clearly shows
that he requested for F type quarter which is smaller than E
type and as such as an afterthought with malafide intention,
filed the suit before this Hon’ble Court.
It is pertinent to mention here that if other employees
are living in E type quarters in the same vicinity, how the
plaintiff is claiming that the condition of house is not worth-
living and is dangerous for inhabitation. It is also worth
mentioning here that there are about houses of same type
and constructed on the same date. The plaintiff was not bound
to accept the house, had its condition not been good. It is also
denied that Civil Engineer has declared the house dangerous to
life. The plaintiff is habitual of misuing the company
accommodation facility and violating the company’s housing
policy for which the defendants have received various
complaints with particular reference to Mr. Tahir Hafeez.
Allegations levelled against defendant in this para are denied
being incorrect.
3. That in reply to para No. 3, it is submitted that the plaintiff is
not at all being victimized due to his Trade union activities,
nor he has been subjected to any torture. As already submitted
the plainitff does not stand entitled for D type quarter due to
junior in seniority, no right of plaintiff has been infringed
which could have been cause of action for filing this suit. It is
incorrect that as a result of privatization agreement dated
27.6.1996, the defendants are bound to allot him free and
furnished quarter. Defendants are liable to provide
accommodation if available or pay house rent @ 30% of
minimum of basic pay scale. The plaintiff is therefore at
liberty either to opt for accommodation or receive the house
rent. Plaintiff’s request for appointment of Commission is
irrelevant as company has its fulfleged civil section consisting
of B.Sc. Civil Engineer and several qualified Sub-Engineers to
ensure maintenance of building and take care of any matter
relating thereto. The plaintiff has been allotted quarter as per
availability and with his consent. Privatization agreement does
not specify particular clause of quarter to be allotted. It is the
sole discretion of the management to decide which quarter is
to be allotted to whom based on seniority in grade.
It is totally incorrect that the defendants have ever
refused the plaintiff to allot him. Plaintiff has no cause of
action to file the present suit. In an application dated 1.1.2002,
the plaintiff has mis-stated the facts that houses No. E-267 &
E-268 were cancelled, but fact remains that he himself got
these cancelled through an application dated 13.3.2001. The
plaintiff has also admitted the situation of the house No. E-
267, which is malafide on his part and concealed material fact
from this Hon’ble Court.
That the defendants have allotted him suitable
accommodation vide order dated 11.3.2002 with his consent.
Allegations not specifically denied in para No. 3 or
denied being incorrect.
As regards the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court, this is
legal. Hence, no comments.
As regards the value of suit for the purpose of court fee,
it is legal, hence, no comments.
Prayer: -
In view of the above, both on facts and laws, it is
respectfully prayed that the declaratory suit so filed by the
plaintiff may kindly be dismissed with special costs in the
interest of justice.
Humble Defendants,
For Kot Addu Power Company Ltd.
Dated: _________

Through: -
i) Riaz-ul-Hassan,
Advocate

ii) Muhammad Amin Malik


Advocate
38-Muhammadan Block,
District Courts, Multan.

Verification: -
Verified on oath that the contents of
written statement regarding territorial
jurisdiction and court fee on facts and
legal objections are correct to my
belief and para 1 to 3 on facts are true
to the best of my knowledge and
belief.

Humble Defendants,
For Kot Addu Power Co. Ltd.