Constitution Petition No.D-2176 of 2012
Date Order with signature of the Judge
1. For Katcha Peshi.
2. For hearing of Misc. No.13194/2012 (Stay).
----------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Kh. Shams-ul-Islam, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Noor Muhammad Dayo, Senior Prosecutor NAB.
-------------
The petitioner upon issuance of call up notice by the NAB authorities filed a Constitutional Petition bearing No.D-424 of 2011 seeking pre-arrest bail and this Court vide its order dated 09.02.2011 granted pre-arrest interim bail to the petitioner on submission of surety in the sum of Rs.500,000/-. The record reflects that after filing of reference a statement was made before the Court on 01.6.2012 that after filing of reference the said petition has become infructuous and consequently was dismissed as having become infructuous and, thereafter, the petitioner/accused was arrested and has been remanded to the judicial custody and, hence, the present petition seeking post arrest bail.
Perusal of record further reflects that the allegation against the present petitioner is only that he neglected to perform his statutory duties of collecting/depositing cheques pertaining to airways bills under a facility granted to the principal accused. It is also an admitted position that the principal accused are on bail which was granted by this Court in Constitution Petition No.D-3682 of 2011 as a pre-arrest concession, whereas, the petition of the present petitioner was dismissed upon observing that after filing the reference it has become infructuous. The question as to whether after filing the reference petition in which this Court had allowed concession of pre-arrest bail on call-up notice dated 25.10.2010 had become infructuous is debatable and further the petitioner was also entitled to the similar treatment as has been given to the principal accused or at least hearing on merits, therefore, till hearing of the other petition bearing No.D-3682/2011, we are of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail. We, therefore, would allow the petitioner’s interim post-arrest bail against surety of Rs.500,000/- to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court and direct the hearing of this petition along with Petition No.D-3682/2011.
At this juncture, counsel for the petitioner says that the surety is already lying with the Nazir in earlier Petition No.D-424/2011, which may be accepted. If it is so and the surety is still intact and to the satisfaction of Nazir the same would be accepted.
JUDGE
JUDGE
Const. Petition No.D-234 of 1999
Date Order with signature of the Judge
1. For order on C.M.A. No.7106/2012 (U/S.151 CPC).
2. For hearing of C.M.A. No.4902/2012 (U/S.151 CPC).
3. For hearing of C.M.A. No.3741/2012 (Contempt).
4. For hearing of C.M.A. No.428/2012 (Contempt).
5. For hearing of C.M.A. No.429/2012 (U/S.151 CPC).
6. For order on Statement of Administrator dt:14.4.2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Shafi Muhammad Memon, Addl. A.G. for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Zubair Hashmi, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
Mr. Amir Aziz Khan, Advocate for Respondents No.6 to 8.
Mr. Zia-ul-Haq Makhdoom, Advocate for former Chairman of the Society.
Syed Amir Ali, Advocate for Applicant Muhammad Nawaz.
M/s. Rizwan H. Nadeem and Naeem Akhtar Khan Tanoli, Advocates for Applicants/Intervenor Abdul Sattar & others.
Mr. Kashif Hanif, Advocates for Intervenor Muhammad Tahir.
-------------
1-6 Vide order dated 17.10.2011 the Court had directed holding of election in terms of the list of the lessees and allottees provided by the Administrator along with his statement dated 24.6.2011. Perusal of the statement reflects that the first list is of settled claim of leaseholder in which 230 members have been listed in respect of Categories “A”, “B”, “C”, “D”, “E”, “CS” and “AS” and 152 members are listed as settled claim on the basis of allotment and transfer of the plots in Categories “A”, “B”, “C”, “D”, “E”, “CS” and “AS” which are termed as first list in order dated 17.10.2001. Whereas the third list in respect of settled claim of phase-II allotment (referred to as second list) contains 130 members in respect of Categories “A”, “B”, “C” and “ST” and consequently total membership in all the three lists comes to 512 members as is evident from order dated 17.10.2011. In the circumstances, we by consent of all present direct the holding of election by giving rights of votes to these 512 members in terms of order dated 17.10.2011.
Mr. Zia-ul-Haq Makhdoom, counsel appearing for the former Chairman of the Society, states that the third list which provides for 130 members in phase-II on 10 acres of land, infact, such land is owned by the Chairman and not the Society and, therefore, no allotment to such land could be made by the Society. He further states that the members have filed suit pending in this Court wherein they have sought declaration that the said land is of the Society and not the former Chairman of the Society. Be that as it may, in our opinion, it is a dispute which cannot be adjudicated in the instant proceedings and the parties are at liberty to pursue their remedies in proper forum. Let election be held in terms of order dated 17.10.2011 within forty-five days. At joint request Official Assignee to supervise holding of election and if he feels not appropriate due to any reason he could even takeover the process of holding election and conduct the same. Fees of the Official Assignee tentatively as jointly suggested in the sum of Rs.100,000/- shall be paid from the funds of the Society.
All the applications at the request of all present stand disposed of in above terms.
JUDGE
JUDGE
Const. Petition No.D-326 of 2012
Date Order with signature of the Judge
1. For order on C.M.A. No.5510/2012 (U/S.151 CPC).
2. For order on C.M.A. No.2620/2012 (U/S.151 CPC).
3. For order on C.M.A. No.1841/2012 (Exemption).
4. For Katcha Peshi.
6. For order on C.M.A. No.1842/2012 (Stay).
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S. Aamir Ali, Advocate for Petitioners.
-------------
In view of the order passed today in Const. Petition No.D-234 of 1999 counsel for the petitioners says that he is satisfied and does not press this petition, which accordingly is dismissed as not pressed.
JUDGE
JUDGE
Suit No.538 of 2010
Date Order with signature of the Judge
1. For order on C.M.A. No.4492/2012 (If granted).
2. For order on C.M.A. No.3436/2012 (U/S.151 CPC).
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff No.1 Mst. Rukhsana Iqbal present in person.
-------------
1. Urgency is granted.
2. Through this application plaintiff seeks withdrawal of her share in the sum of Rs.11,25,000/- which was to be paid to her after the sale deed was executed by the Nazir in favour of defendant No.3. However, Nazir’s report dated 10.4.2012 reflects that the defendant No.3 has failed to submit draft sale deed. Plaintiff No.1 present in person states that defendants are deliberately delaying the matter in order to prolong her agony. Let notice be issued to the defendants for 30.5.2012 at 11am and in case sale deed or relinquishment deed from the plaintiff is not obtained within 15-days Nazir would submit his reference for the release of plaintiff’s share.
JUDGE
Suit No.1199 of 2010
Date Order with signature of the Judge
1. For order on C.M.A. No.4530/2012 (If granted).
2. For order on C.M.A. No.4531/2012 (U/O.23 R3 CPC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Muhammad Safdar, Advocate for Plaintiff.
Mr. Muhammad Ameen, Advocate along with Defendants.
-------------
1. Urgency is granted.
2. Counsel for the plaintiff says that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled, as both the defendants present in Court state that as of today defendants have no claim against the plaintiff and they shall not harass the plaintiff and intend to withdraw his claim of damages against the defendants and as of today both the parties have no claim against each other. On the basis of such settlement which ofcourse cannot be sealed as decree of the Court. Counsel for the plaintiff says that suit may be disposed of in terms of the settlement reached at between the parties. Order accordingly.
JUDGE
Suit No.1907 of 2010
Date Order with signature of the Judge
1. For order on C.M.A. No.10451/2011 (U/O.23 R.1 CPC).
2. For hearing of C.M.A. No.88/2011 (U/O.39 R1&2 CPC).
3. For hearing of C.M.A. No.613/2011 (U/O.7 R.11 CPC).
4. For examination of the parties/settlement of issues.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Imran Ameer, Advocate holds brief for Mr. S.M. Mustafa, Advocate for Plaintiff.
-------------
Through application listed at Serial No.1 plaintiff seeks unconditional withdrawal of the instant suit on the ground that after going through the written-statement it has revealed upon the plaintiff that the defendant claimed property through gift and, therefore, plaintiff does not press this suit with permission to file afresh. Suit is dismissed as not pressed and the plaintiff would be at liberty to pursue his remedy in accordance with law.
JUDGE
Suit No.1350 of 2011
Date Order with signature of the Judge
1. For order on C.M.A. No.542/2012 (U/O.23 R3 CPC).
2. For hearing of C.M.A. No.11202/2011 (U/O.39 R1&2 CPC).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Zubair Ishaq, Advocate for Plaintiff.
-------------
1. Counsel submits that the dispute between plaintiff and defendants has been amicably resolved as detailed in this application and the suit may be disposed of in terms of the application. However, it was pointed out that no one is present on behalf of the defendants, counsel says that the suit may be dismissed as withdrawn due to the settlement. Since the counsel for the plaintiff as per power conferred upon him by plaintiff is empowered to withdraw the suit, therefore, the suit is dismissed as withdrawn along with pending application, with no order as to costs.
JUDGE
Suit No.1496 of 2011
Date Order with signature of the Judge
1. For order on C.M.A. No.4541/2012 (If granted).
2. For order on C.M.A. No.4542/2012 (U/O.23 R3 CPC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Chaudhry Abdul Rasheed, Advocate along with Attorney Rehan-ul-Haque.
Mr. Abdul Wajid Wyne, Advocate along with Defendant Farhat Khalid.
-------------
1. Urgency is granted.
2. Both the counsel say that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled, therefore, the instant suit may be decreed in terms of compromise as detailed in the application. Both the parties, who are present in Court, have acknowledged the contents of compromise application as well as their signatures thereon. Since the compromise is lawful and within the ambit of Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, therefore, the suit is decreed in terms of compromise.
JUDGE
Suit No.335 of 2002
Date Order with signature of the Judge
1. For order on C.M.A. No.4606/2012 (If granted).
2. For order on C.M.A. No.4607/2012 (U/S.151 CPC).
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Shafique Ahmed, Advocate for Plaintiff along with husband of Plaintiff S.M. Iqbal.
-------------
1. Urgency is granted.
2. Through this application plaintiff seeks return of the amount deposited with the Nazir of this Court. Counsel contends that this suit for specific performance was decreed on the terms that balance amount was to be deposited within two weeks and in case it was not deposited suit was to be dismissed and the advance amount paid would stand forfeited. Per counsel, balance amount was deposited late and was not accepted even appeal filed was dismissed, therefore, now the amount which was deposited with the Nazir be returned. The record does not show any amount was deposited, perhaps the amount was deposited in execution proceeding bearing No.60/2003. Let said file be tagged along with this suit and the matter be fixed in Court for hearing on 22.5.2012.
JUDGE
Suit No.Nil of 2012
(Pakistan Drug House Ltd. V/s Sarana Hitshri Ayarvedik & 2 others)
Date Order with signature of the Judge
1. For order on C.M.A. No.4587/2012 (If granted).
2. For order on C.M.A. No.4588/2012 (U/O.39 R2(3) CPC).
3. For order on C.M.A. No.4589/2012 (U/S.94 CPC).
(It is respectfully pointed out that the captioned matter is fixed in Court on
24.5.2012 in terms of Court’s order dated 9.5.2012)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Muhammad Khalid, Advocate for Plaintiff.
-------------
1. Urgency is granted.
2&3. Counsel contends that despite grant of injunctive order on 9.5.2012 from this Court the defendants in connivance of the Bailiff of Rent Controller in violation of the said order have taken over the possession of the demised premises from the plaintiff. Per counsel, not only the defendants’ attorney and Bailiff but the Rent Controller was informed about the injunctive order and the said order was placed before the Rent Controller who directed Head Bailiff to get the ejectment proceedings stopped, but the Bailiff proceeded with the execution and despite restraint order from this Court has taken over the possession. Consequently, the application listed at Serial No.2 has been moved for initiating contempt proceedings against the attorney of defendant No.1 as well as Bailiff. Whereas through application listed at Serial No.3, plaintiff seeks restoring the possession of suit property. Let show cause notices be issued to the alleged contemnors to explain their position, as to why the proceedings for disobedience of the Court’s directions be not initiated against them. Reply should be placed before this Court within seven-days when this matter shall be taken up for hearing and the alleged contemnors are further directed to effect their appearance in person before this Court on 18.5.2012 at 11am.
As to the application listed at Serial No.3, Head Bailiff of this Court is directed to takeover the possession of Shop No.G-7 + G-8 constructed on RB 3/19/2, Molana Din Muhammad Wafai Road, Pakistan Chowk, Karachi, immediately after intimating the defendants by sealing the same and submit compliance report today at 2pm. To come up on 14.5.2012 at 8:30am.
JUDGE
Suit No.954 of 2011
Date Order with signature of the Judge
1. For order on C.M.A. No.4479/2012 (If granted).
2. For order on C.M.A. No.4480/2012 (U/O.12 R.6 CPC).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Malik Muhammad Riaz, Advocate for Plaintiff.
-------------
1. Urgency is granted.
2. Counsel contends that the defendants have undisputedly admitted the claim of plaintiff by referring to Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the written-statement. It is next contended that a sum of Rs.100 Million was invested with the defendant and the defendant is neither returning the said amount nor paying interest/markup thereon. Since it appears to be a case of hardship, let notice be issued to the defendant for 22.5.2012 when this matter shall be taken up at 11am.
JUDGE
Suit No.1434 of 2007
Date Order with signature of the Judge
For hearing of C.M.A. No.3219/2012 (U/S.3&4 Contempt)
(Notice of C.M.A. No.3219/12 issued to alleged contemnors as well as advocate
for the defendants for 10.5.2012)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Mushtaq A. Memon, Advocate for Plaintiff.
Mr. Ghayasuddin, Advocate for Defendant No.2.
Mr. Nasir Hussain Jafri, Advocate for Defendant No.9.
Ms. Rehmatunnisa, Advocate for Defendant No.5.
-------------
On 15.11.2007 Registrar Cooperative Housing Societies was restrained from interfering with the management of the Society with the observation that in case any complaint is filed or received Registrar may hold inquiry in accordance with law, after notice to the plaintiff. Whereas, through letter dated 15.3.2012 District Officer Cooperative, City District Government Karachi in gross violation of the said order has not only interfered with the management of the Society but has restricted the power of Society to cancel, allot, transfer and mutate the plots and further to operate the account. This prima facie appears to be in clear violation of the order dated 15.11.2007. In the circumstances, letter dated 15.3.2012 is suspended. Show-cause-notices be issued to the alleged contemnors, as to why the charge for breaching directions of this Court be not framed against them. To come up on 28.5.2012.
JUDGE
Suit No.595 of 1998
Date Order with signature of the Judge
For further orders as Commissioner report not yet
received since 4.11.2008 and 16.12.2011.
------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Naim-ur-Rehman, Advocate for Plaintiff.
Mr. Munir-ur-Rehman, Advocate for Defendant No.1.
Mr. Nadeem Ahmed, Advocate for Defendant No.6.
-------------
Learned counsel for the plaintiff says that all necessary documents have been obtained by him from the Official Assignee and the matter now is fixed before the Commissioner on 25.5.2012 and he will ensure that his witness appears before the Commissioner for cross-examination. By consent the time for return of commission is extended by six months.
JUDGE
Suit No.367 of 2012
Date Order with signature of the Judge
1. For hearing of C.M.A. No.3467/2012 (U/O.39 R1&2 CPC).
2. For hearing of C.M.A. No.3562/2012 (U/S.12(2) CPC).
3. For hearing of C.M.A. No.3563/2012 (U/S.151 CPC).
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Muhammad Safdar, Advocate along with Plaintiff.
Mr. Moulvi Iqbal Haider, Advocate along with Defendant No.1.
-------------
Since the dispute in the instant suit was between mother and daughter, therefore, after long counseling in presence of their learned counsel, the parties after consulting their counsel have reached the following amicable settlement:
1. Defendant No.1 shall not sell the suit property during lifetime of the plaintiff nor shall dispossess her from the suit property and she will also respect her as a mother, take care of her and will discharge all her obligations as a responsible and good daughter.
2. Defendant No.1 shall provide to the plaintiff maintenance to the extent of 50% of her income with minimum of Rs.15,000/- every month to be deposited by the defendant No.1 in plaintiff’s bank account. Defendant No.1 shall bear all household expenses and shall also pay all utilities charges including flat maintenance.
3. Plaintiff shall deposit with the Nazir of this Court all original title documents of the subject property which shall be retained by the Nazir in safe custody during life time of plaintiff or till further directions. The said original title documents shall be handed over to the defendant No.1 after the death of plaintiff.
4. The plaintiff shall not press cause for cancellation of Gift Deed.
Suit in the terms as mentioned above stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Suit No.384 of 2008
Date Order with signature of the Judge
For further order.
(In terms of Court’s order dt:13.4.2012)
(Intimation notice issued to the parties for 9.5.2012)
------------------------------------------
Plaintiff present in person.
-------------
In this matter preliminary decree was passed on 6.4.2010 and the Nazir has issued many letters but the parties were not cooperating in order to implement and enforce the preliminary decree. Plaintiff present in person states that the documents of all the properties are with defendant No.1. The record reflects that defendant No.1 claims some family settlement denied by the plaintiff leading to passing of preliminary decree. Defendant No.1 is directed to produce in Court all the original title documents of the properties listed in Para-2 of the plaint on the next date. Since despite service through Bailiff he has failed to effect appearance, therefore, notice be served upon him through concerned police station for 17.5.2012, to be taken up at 11am.
JUDGE
Suit No.360 of 2000
Date Order with signature of the Judge
1. For order on C.M.A. No.4457/2012 (If granted).
2. For hearing of O/A. Ref. No.05/2009.
(Attention is respectfully invited to Hon’ble Court that matter is already fixed on 18.5.12)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. Sofia Saeed Shah, Advocate.
-------------
When it was pointed out to the counsel that Reference No.05/2009 is already fixed on 18.5.2012, she does not press urgent application, which is dismissed.
JUDGE
Suit No.704 of 2002
Date Order with signature of the Judge
1. For order on C.M.A. No.4395/2012 (If granted).
2. For order on Nazir Report dated 8.4.2012.
3. For hearing of C.M.A. No.11513/2011 (U/O.40 CPC).
(Attention is respectfully pointed out that this matter is already fixed in Court on 14.5.12)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Muhammad Imtiaz Agha, Advocate for Plaintiff.
-------------
When it was pointed out to the counsel that this matter is already fixed on 14.5.2012, counsel does not press urgent application, which is dismissed.
JUDGE
Suit No.510 of 2004
Date Order with signature of the Judge
1. For order on C.M.A. No.4394/2012 (If granted).
2. For order on C.M.A. No.3975/2012 (U/O.39 R2(3) CPC).
(Attention is respectfully pointed out that this matter is already fixed in Court on 6.6.12)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Z.U. Mujahid, Advocate for Plaintiffs.
-------------
1. Urgency is granted.
2. Counsel says that despite interim order dated 4.6.2004 defendant has disconnected plaintiff’s electric supply. However, perusal of order dated 4.6.2004 reflects that restraint order was subject to deposit recurring bill for the electricity consumed. Nothing in support of the fact that disconnection was despite payment of current bill has been annexed with the application. Counsel requests that sometime be given enabling him to file additional affidavit or the documents in support of the instant application. Time allowed. Adjourned.
JUDGE
Suit No.281 of 2012
Date Order with signature of the Judge
For further order.
(In view of Court’s order dated 16.4.2012)
-----------------------------------
Mr. Khursheed Javed, Advocate along with Plaintiff No.1.
Shaikh Javed Mir, Advocate along with Defendant No.2.
-------------
Through the application (under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC) filed in Court (may be numbered by the office) wherein plaintiff seeks unconditional withdrawal of the instant suit. Counsel for the plaintiff contends that plaintiff does not dispute that the actual owner of the property subject matter of this suit was Mst. Surriya Usman, who till date is alive and has sold this property to the defendant No.2, but two ladies i.e. Mst. Tasleem Usman and Mst. Saima Usman, who represented to be the daughters of Mst. Surriya Usman after showing her forged and manipulated death certificate obtained heirship certificate got the said property mutated in their names and thereafter Mst. Saima Usman relinquished her share in favour of Mst. Tasleem Usman, who ultimately executed conveyance deed and rectification deed regarding suit property in favour of the plaintiff. Per counsel, after coming to know that Mst. Surriya Usman is still alive and has legally sold her property in favour of defendant No.2 he has been instructed by the plaintiffs to withdraw this suit and to initiate proceedings against Mst. Tasleem Usman and Mst. Saima Usman who have cheated the plaintiff.
The record reflects that original title documents of the property subject matter of this suit both with plaintiffs and defendant No.2 were directed to be deposited with the Nazir of this Court and since the suit is being withdrawn Nazir is directed to return original title documents of the defendant No.2 upon proper verification, identification and as per rules. As to the conveyance deed and rectification deed which the plaintiff admits to have been fraudulently executed at the request of plaintiffs are hereby cancelled. Nazir would send those documents to the Inspector General Stamps for the return of stamp duties and CVT, if permissible under the law. Suit consequently is dismissed as withdrawn with no order as to costs. However, the plaintiffs would be at liberty to persuade his remedy in accordance with law.
At this juncture, Mr. Khursheed Javed requests for return of Court-fee. Let a proper application be moved.
JUDGE
Suit No.736 of 2010
Date Order with signature of the Judge
1. For examination of the parties/settlement of issues.
2. For order on C.M.A. No.2353/2012 (U/S.151 CPC).
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Ahmed Ali Ghumro, Advocate for Plaintiffs.
Mr. Iqrar Ahmed, Advocate for Defendant.
-------------
1. Both the counsel jointly request for time to file consent issues on the next date. Time allowed.
2. Through this application it is prayed on behalf of the plaintiffs that the order imposing cost of Rs.5,000/- on account of non-appearance of the plaintiffs vide order dated 06.3.2012 be recalled. Counsel for the plaintiffs contends that he was busy before another bench of this Court, whereas plaintiffs were present but when the matter was called his associate was neither explained the position before this Court nor procured the attendance of the plaintiffs in Court. Since the counsel has filed his personal affidavit to explain the position, therefore, order dated 06.3.2012 to the extent of imposing cost of Rs.5,000/- is hereby recalled.
JUDGE
Suit No.374 of 2010
Date Order with signature of the Judge
For order on C.M.A. No.2351/2012 (U/S.151 CPC).
(Attention is respectfully invited to the order passed by the Hon’ble Chief Justice
on office note at flag “A”)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Iqrar Ahmed, Advocate for Plaintiff.
Mr. Ahmed Ali Ghumro, Advocate for Defendants No.1 to 6.
Mr. Patras Piyara, Advocate for Defendant No.8.
-------------
Through this application it is prayed on behalf of the defendants No.1 to 6 that the order imposing cost of Rs.5,000/- on account of non-appearance of the defendants vide order dated 06.3.2012 be recalled. Counsel for the defendants No.1 to 6 contends that he was busy before another bench of this Court, whereas defendants were present but when the matter was called his associate was neither explained the position before this Court nor procured the attendance of the defendants in Court. Since the counsel has filed his personal affidavit to explain the position, therefore, order dated 06.3.2012 to the extent of imposing cost of Rs.5,000/- is hereby recalled.
JUDGE
Suit No.1159 of 2006
Date Order with signature of the Judge
1. For hearing of C.M.A. No.9678/2010 (U/S.151 CPC).
2. For examination of parties/settlement of issues.
(Copy of order issued to the DG Anti-Corruption, Secretary SITE as well as
Nazir of this Court)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Ali Mehdi, Advocate for Plaintiff.
Mr. Muhammad Ishaq Ali, Advocate for Defendant No.1 along with Secretary Makhdoom Aqeel-uz-Zaman.
Mr. Ch. M. Saeed-uz-Zaman, Advocate for Defendant No.5.
Mr. Munir Ahmed, Advocate for Defendant No.6.
-------------
Nazir of this Court, Mr. Naveed Ahmed Soomro, requests for 10-days time to effect compliance of order dated 12.4.2012. He further requests that Secretary SITE be directed to effect appearance before him in order to obtain documents which he has signed for comparison with the disputed mark. Secretary SITE present in Court says that he will effect appearance before the Nazir tomorrow at 11am.
JUDGE
Suit No.46 of 2009
Date Order with signature of the Judge
1. For order on C.M.A. No.4328/2012 (If granted).
2. For order on Commissioner Report dated 9.12.2011.
(Attention is respectfully invited that the matter is fixed in Court on 30.5.2012)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Shafaat Hussain, Advocate for Plaintiff.
-------------
1. Urgency is granted.
2 to 5. Commissioner has filed reference intimating that the evidence of plaintiff has been recorded, whereas defendant despite grant of four opportunities has failed to either appear or to file affidavit-in-evidence. Mr.Ghulam Rasool, Advocate holding brief for Mr. Khalid Mahmood Siddiqui, counsel for the defendant, submits that a final opportunity be granted to the defendant for filing affidavit-in-evidence. Request is vehemently opposed by plaintiff’s counsel on the ground that evidence of the plaintiff was recorded somewhere in July 2011 and despite lapse of almost ten-months defendant has not filed their affidavit-in-evidence without any lawful justification.
Perusal of the reference reflects that opportunities to the defendants have been provided in the months of September and November 2011 for filing affidavit-in-evidence and on their failure in December 2011 learned Commissioner has filed reference. There is no explanation or justification for not filing affidavit-in-evidence by the defendant to the learned Commissioner after filing of this reference i.e. for the last almost six months. However, in the larger interest of justice, instead of shutting of the defendant from leading evidence I allow final opportunity to the defendant at the cost of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with the Nazir of this Court within seven-days hereof and the affidavit-in-evidence be filed before the learned Commissioner on or before 19th May 2012.
JUDGE
Suit No.1184 of 2009
Date Order with signature of the Judge
1. For order on C.M.A. No.4398/2012 (If granted).
2. For order on Nazir Report dated 30.4.2012.
3. For order on Nazir Report dated 19.3.2012.
4. For order on Nazir Report dated 28.3.2012.
5. For order on Nazir Report dated 31.3.2012.
(Attention is respectfully invited that the matter is fixed in Court
on 28.5.2012)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Adnan Ahmed, Advocate for Plaintiff.
Syed Ehsan Raza, Advocate for Defendants No.2 to 7.
Mr. Nadeem Memon, Advocate for Auction Purchaser.
-------------
1. Urgency is granted.
2 to 5. All the Nazir’s reports with consent of all present are taken on record.
As to the original allotment order, counsel for the plaintiff states that it has been lost and the photocopy has been deposited. Conversely counsel for the auction purchaser states that either photocopy be treated as original or the KDA be directed to mutate the property in favour of auction purchaser on the strength of available documents. Nazir to ensure that in case title of the plaintiff is clean then KDA should not object from mutating the property in the name of auction purchaser merely on the ground that original of the allotment order is not available.
JUDGE
Suit No.1598 of 2010
Date Order with signature of the Judge
1. For order on C.M.A. No.4365/2012 (If granted).
2. For order on C.M.A. No.4366/2012 (U/O.23 R 1 CPC).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Aamir Maqsood, Advocate for Plaintiff.
-------------
1. Urgency is granted.
2. Through this application plaintiff seeks unconditional withdrawal of the instant suit on the ground that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled. Plaintiff present in Court acknowledges this position. Suit consequently is dismissed as withdrawn with no order as to costs.
JUDGE