IN THE COURT OF IST SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NAWABSHAH.

F.C. SUIT NO.

OF 2013.

Bashir Ahmed
Versus
Chairman NADRA and Others

--------------------- Plaintiff.

-------------------- Defendants.

APPLICATION U/O 16 RULE 1 and 2 CPC.

It is requested that on consideration of the grounds
submitted in the affidavit thereto, that this Honourable Court may be
pleased to allow the plaintiff to examine the following witness in the
above matter on consideration of the grounds mentioned in the
accompanying affidavit.

List of Witnesses:1.
2.
3.

Plaintiff himself.
Muhammad Akram S/o Khushi Muhammad.
Sher Muhammad s/o Ameer Muhammad.

Advocate for Plaintiff.

Nawabshah.
Dated:

IN THE COURT OF IST SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NAWABSHAH.

F.C. SUIT NO.

OF 2013.

Bashir Ahmed
Versus
Chairman NADRA and Others

--------------------- Plaintiff.

-------------------- Defendants.

AFFIDAVIT

I, Bashir Ahmed S/o Boota Khan, Arain, Adult, Muslim, R/o

Hanif Colony, Linepar Nawabshah, District Shaheed Benazirabad, do
hereby state on Oath as under:-

1.

That I am Plaintiff in the above matter and I am fully aware of

all the facts involved in the above matter.

2.

That the accompanying application has been drafted under my

instruction.

3.

That our valuable rights are involved in the above matter.

4.

That I was under bonafide belief that the lists of witnesses have
been submitted by my advocate, but on verification it was found
that the same are not there.

5.

That the evidence of above mentioned witnesses will help the

Honourable Court to reach just and fair conclusion in the real
dispute between the parties.

6.

That I shall suffer irreparable loss and injury if the

accompanying application is not allowed.
Whatever stated above is true and correct to the best of my
Knowledge and belief.
I know the deponent

Advocate.

Deponent.

IN THE COURT OF IST SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NAWABSHAH.

F.C. SUIT NO. 389 OF 2009

Abdul Ghafoor

--------------------- Plaintiff.

Versus
TMA Nawabshah & Others

-------------------- Defendants.

APPLICATION U/O 18 RULE 17 CPC.

It is prayed on behalf of defendant No.8, that this
Honourable Court may be pleased to re-call the plaintiff as well as his
witnesses examined by the Honourable Court, on 15.03.2011 , to be
cross examined on the consideration of the grounds mentioned in
accompanying affidavit.

This prayer is made in the interest of justice.

Advocate for defendant No.8.

Nawabshah.
Dated:

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NAWABSHAH.

F.C. SUIT NO. 135 OF 2007

Kareem Bux

--------------------- Plaintiff.

Versus
The Province of Sindh & Others

-------------------- Defendants.

AFFIDAVIT.
I, Rao Aftab Alam son of Rao Muhammad Hanif, Muslim, adult,
r/o: Issarpura, Nawabshah, do hereby state on oath as under:-

1).

That I am defendant NO.8, in the above suit .

2).

That the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the Honourable

Court U/O 17 Rule (3) CPC vide order dated: 06.03.2010, against which
civil Appeal bearing No. 37 of 2010 was filed, which was allowed by the
learned 2nd. Additional District Judge, Shaheed Benazir Abad

and the

matter was remanded back, vide order dated: 19.02.2011, but no any
date was fixed intimating the parties to appear before the Honourable
Court for the purpose of recording the evidence.
3).

That neither any court motion notice was issued by the

Honourable Court to me as well as my advocate, hence I was totally

unaware about the fixing of the date by the Honourable Court on
15.03.2011, on which the Honourable Court examined the plaintiff as
well as his witnesses by mentioning the cross examination on my part to
be nil.
4).

That there is no any fault on my part , therefore, in the interest of

justice my accompanying application may kindly be allowed and plaintiff

along with his witnesses may be recalled to be re-examined/ cross
examined before the Honourable Court.
Whatever stated above is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief.

Deponent.
I Know the Deponent.

Advocate

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE-II, NAWABSHAH.

SUIT NO. 01 OF 2007

Syed Maqsood Ali Shah.

Versus

--------------------- Plaintiff.

Syed Ibadaut Ali Shah & Others.

-------------------- Defendants.

OBJECTIONS TO APPLICATION U/O

18 RULE 17 CPC

I, Nimazdin son of Muhammad Bux Bugo, R/O: Shahpur

Jahania , Taluka Kazi Ahmed , District Shaheed Benazir Abad, do hereby
state on oath as under :1).

That I am special attorney of the plaintiff and am aware of all the

facts involved in this matter.

2).

That I have gone through the contents of application U/O 18 Rule

17 CPC along with affidavit filed by the advocate for defendants and after
under standing the same I say that the contents there of are incorrect
and hence denied.

3).

That the learned advocate for defendants was very much in the

knowledge that in the suit aforesaid there was an order already passed

by the Honourable Court for day to day proceedings hence non

availability of either party or his advocate is deemed to be deliberate and
intentional, as repeated called were effected but none appeared on the
part of the defendants.

P/2
4).

P/2

That application is not maintainable as in the provision in which

the application has been moved pertains to the court only , if the Court
put such question to him as it thinks fit and there is no such
requirements , hence the same is not maintainable and is liable to be
dismissed.

5).

That so far, the affidavit filed by the advocate for defendant is

concerned it is submitted that filling of affidavit by the advocate in

relation to facts of the case was disapproved by the Supreme Court for
not being in consonance with the principle of ethics which were binding
upon the advocates being officers of Court as held in PLD 2004, (S.C)
489, hence the application shall be deemed to have been filed without
filling the affidavit, hence the same is not maintainable under rule 67 (c),
of Sindh Civil Court Rules.

7).

That neither any record of appearing in the Court of Ist. Additional

Sessions Judge, Shaheed Benazir Abad, has been produced before the
Honourable court.

8).

That defendants want to linger on the mater and such facts can be

ascertained from the fact that the mater is fixed for the evidence of
defendants side, but despite of lapse of so many dates none has appeared
on the part of defendants to get himself examined

9).

That application is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed

with special costs.

Whatever stated above is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief.

Deponent.
I know the Deponent.

Advocate.

IN THE COURT OF IST SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NAWABSHAH.

Contempt Application No.
In S.C. Suit NO.5

Ghullam Rasool

Versus.

OF 2009

of 2005.

Ishtiaque Ahmed & Others

AFFIDAIVT.
I,

Aijaz

Ahmed

Buriro,

Assistant

Manager

CRD,

SSGCL,

Nawabshah adult, muslim, , do hereby state on solemn affirmation as

under:-

1).

That I am opponent No.3, in the above contempt application and

hence fully conversant with the facts of the same.

2).

That I have been read over and explained the contents of

application U/S 3/4 Contempt of Court Act filed by applicant Ghullam

Rasool and after understanding the same I say that the contents of the
same are incorrect and are denied.

3).

That the applicant is defaulter in payment of Sui Gas Charges and

since 2005 he is not ready to pay and has been taking the advantage of
filing different cases and different times in the honourable court with the
intention to usurp the legal and valid charges for gas consumed by him.
4.

That the applicant has not come before the honourable court with

clean hands and has filed this contempt application in the suit which
was dismissed on 13.7.2006, meaning thereby after the passage of 3
years which is based on blackmailing and pressurizing we the Officials/
Officers of SSGCL So that we may come to his illegal demands.
5.

That Objections filed to application U/S 3 / 4 Contempt of Court

act may be read and treated as part and parcel of this affidavit to avoid
repetition.
Whatever stated above is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief.
I know the deponent.
Deponent.
Advocate

IN THE COURT OF IST SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NAWABSHAH.

Contempt Application No.
In S.C. Suit NO.5

Ghullam Rasool

Versus.

OF 2009

of 2005.

Ishtiaque Ahmed & Others

OBJECTIONS TO APPLICATION U/S 151 CPC

IN SHAPE OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT.
I,

Aijaz

Ahmed

Buriro,

Assistant

Manager

CRD,

SSGCL,

Nawabshah adult, muslim, , do hereby state on solemn affirmation as

under:-

1).

That I am opponent No.3, in the above contempt application and

hence fully conversant with the facts of the same.

2).

That I have been read over and explained the contents of

application U/S 151 CPC filed by applicant Ghullam Rasool and after
understanding the same I say that the contents of the same are incorrect
and are denied.

3).

That the applicant is defaulter in payment of Sui Gas Charges and

since 2005 he is not ready to pay and has been taking the advantage of
filing different cases at different times in the honourable court with the
intention to usurp the legal and valid charges for gas consumed by him.

4).

That the applicant has not come before the honourable court with

clean hands and his Sui Gas Connection has been disconnected due to
his non payment and after his suits for the amount in question have
been dismissed.

5).

That application is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed.

Whatever stated above is true and correct to the best of my

knowledge and belief.
I know the deponent.
Deponent.
Advocate

IN THE COURT OF IST SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NAWABSHAH.

Contempt Application No.

OF 2009

In F.C. Suit NO. 334 of 2007.

Bahawal Khan Zardari

Versus.

Qadir Bux & Others

Muhammad Sahrif
. VERSUS

----------------------------------- Applicant.

Khursheed Naeem Malak & Others.

----------------------------------- Opponents/Contemnors.

OBJECTION IN SHAPE OF COUTNER AFFIDAVIT TO

APPLICATION U/O 39 RULE 2 (3) CPC R/W S 3/4
CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT

I, Wazir Hussain Solangi, adult, muslim, Sub-Registrar,

Nawabshah, do hereby state on solemn affirmation as under:1).

That I am opponent No.4, in the above contempt application and

hence fully conversant with the facts of the same.

2).

That I have been read over and explained the contents of

application U/O 39 Rule 2(3) CPC R/W S 3/4 Contempt of Court Act
filed by applicant Muhammad Sahrif and after understanding the same I
say that the contents of the same are incorrect and are denied.

3).

That after the order dated: 30.09.2008, passed by this Honourable

Court no any registered sale deed either produced or effected in my

office, therefore, contempt application is not maintainable against me.
P/2

P/2
4).

That however, I have been posted as Sub-Registrar, Nawabshah,

and took the charge on 07.02.2009 and since then even no registered
sale deed has been produced by any person in my office with regard to
the suit land.

5).

That I have much respect, prestige, dignity and honour

for the

Honourable Court, therefore, being Public Officer, I can not think to do

as alleged by the applicant in contempt application.

6).

That

no any allegation has even been made against me in the

contempt application for disregarding the orders of the Honourable court,

which have been obliged with its letter and sprits by me in my office.

7).

That contempt application against me is infructuous and to my

extent the same may kindly be dismissed.

Whatever stated above is true and correct to the best of my

knowledge and belief.

Deponent.
I know the deponent.

Advocate

IN THE COURT OF IST SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NAWABSHAH.

Contempt Application No.

2007.

Dr. Mohammad
Mueen.Applicant.

Versus.

Khalid Bukhari
..
.Opponent.

OBJECTION IN SHAPE OF COUTNER

AFFIDAVITTO APPLICATION U/S 3/4
CONTEMPT OF COURT ORDINANCE

I, Syed Khalid Ali S/o Syed Wahid Ali, adult, muslim, R/o Camp
No.2, Kamora Colony, Nawabshah, do hereby state on solemn affirmation
as under:-

1.

That I am opponent and hence fully conversant with the facts of

the same.

2.

That I have been read over and explained the contents of

application U/S 3/4 Contempt of Court Ordinance filed by the applicant

and after understanding the same I say that the contents of the same are
incorrect and are denied.

3.

That after the order of the honourable passed dated 3.12.2007 no

work on the site has taken place but after the status quo order passed
the applicant is misusing the same and in that connection he has filed
this false application to blackmail and harass the opponent on false
assertion.

4.

That the opponent has lot of honour for the honourable court and

has never violated the orders of the honourable court.

5.

That the application has been filed malafidely, therefore the same

is liable to be dismissed.

(Page-2)

6.

That the contents of para 5 of the application are false, irrelevant

and based on malafide.

7.

That the application is not maintainable and is liable to be

dismissed.

Whatever stated above is true and correct to the best of my

knowledge and belief.

I know the deponent.

Deponent.
Advocate