Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 7

IN THE COURT OF CH.

ANWAR ALI, CIVIL JUDGE,


MULTAN.

Muhammad Mansha Sipra Vs. Ch. Younus Ali etc.

SUIT FOR RECOVERY.


WRITTEN STATEMENT.

Respectfully Sheweth: -

Preliminary Objections: -
1. That the plaintiff has no cause of action to file this suit against
the defendants.

2. That plaintiff has no locus standi to file this suit against the
defendants.

3. That the verification of plaint is not according to law, hence,


liable to be dismissed.

4. That on the face of it, the suit is vexatious and frivolous and
liable to be dismissed.

5. That the plaintiff is estopped by this words and conduct to file


the suit.

6. That the ingredients of tort are missing in the suit, hence, the
suit is liable to be dismissed.

7. That the requirements to claim damages are not fulfilled,


hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

8. That the claim of the plaintiff is not legally sustainable, so


cannot be awarded.

9. That essence of the news items was not to damage/defame the


plaintiff, but in due course of professional responsibilities.
10. That the plaintiff miserably failed to point out malice, malfide
or ulterior motive on the part of defendants.

11. That the suit is bad due to non-joinder of necessary parties.

12. That the suit is filed just to pressurize and harass the
defendants.

13. That the defendants are entitled for special costs under section
35-A C.P.C.

ON MERITS: -

1. That para No. 1 is admitted as correct.

2. That para No. 2 is admitted as correct.

3. That contents of this para No. 3 do not need any reply, the
plaintiff has to prove the same.

4. That contents of this para No. 4 do not need any reply, the
plaintiff has to prove the same.

5. That contents of this para No. 5 do not need any reply, the
plaintiff has to prove the same.

6. That contents of this para No. 6 do not need any reply, the
plaintiff has to prove the same. But the same was also a way
to defraud the people.

7. That contents of this para No. 7 do not need any reply, the
plaintiff has to prove the same.

8. That contents of this para No. 8 do not need any reply, the
plaintiff has to prove the same.

9. That contents of this para No. 9 do not need any reply, the
plaintiff has to prove the same.

10. That the publication admitted by the plaintiff to the extent of


defendant, is the bonafide and uprightness of the defendants,
but needs no reply for the rest of para. The plaintiff has to
prove the same.

11. That the contents of para No. 11 are false and not admitted.
The plaintiff has levelled allegation only and miserably failed
to substantiate these allegations. Whatever is published that is
proved even by the contents of plaint itself. However, the
news item dated 24th of April 2002 is misquoted.

12. That the contents of this para are incorrect and not admitted,
upto the extent to harm or cause any injury to the reputation,
good-will and business of plaintiff. The news were not
published also to degrade the plaintiff in the society, business
community or anywhere else. These were published in due
course of professional responsibilities of the defendants.
However, the news items published in papers dated 6th and 7th
of May 2002 have their own history; and prima facie were
proved.

13. That the contents of para No. 13 are incorrect and not
admitted. Detail reply is given in the foregoing para.

14. That some of the contents of para No. 14 are incorrect and not
admitted. Some contents of this para need no reply and
plaintiff has to prove the same. The publishing of news items
was in due course of professional responsibility. However, the
claim of plaintiff is imaginary and not sustainable on the legal
and actual aspects.

15. That the contents of para No. 15 are incorrect. The defendants
had not acted illegally and no defamatory material was
published, so there is no responsibility upon them for any type
of damages/compensation.

16. That the contents of para No. 16 are incorrect and not
admitted. The plaintiff never approached the defendants to
give his version. If the plaintiff is ready, the defendants are
ready to publish his version in due course of their professional
responsibilities. However, as soon as the restrictive order of
this Hon’ble Court was received by the defendants, then there
was no further publication, even having the ample material.

17. That the contents of para No. 17 are incorrect. The plaintiff
has no cause of action against the defendants.
18. That para No. 18 needs no reply being a legal one.

19. That para No. 19 needs no reply being a legal one.

Keeping in view the above-mentioned facts, it is


respectfully prayed that the suit of plaintiff may please
be dismissed with costs and special costs under section
35-A may also be granted to the defendants.

Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems


fit, may please be extended in the interest of justice.

Defendants,

(i) Ch. Younus Ali, (ii) Arif Moeen Ballay

(iii) Malik Nasir (iv) Rana Rohail

(v) Iftikhar Sahoo

Verification: -
Verified on oath that the contents of
this written statement are true and
correct to the best of our knowledge &
belief.
Defendants

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

Muhammad Mansha Sipra Vs. Ch. Younus Ali etc.

SUIT FOR RECOVERY.


Application U/O 39, R-1, 2 read with section 151 C.P.C.
Reply of application.

Respectfully Sheweth: -

Preliminary Objections: -

1. That the applicant has no locus standi to file the application.


Hence, liable to be dismissed.

2. That the applicant has no cause of action to file the


application. Hence, liable to rejection.

3. That the application is not maintainable under the provisions


of law.

ON MERITS: -

1. That para No. 1 is formal, needs no reply.

2. That the contents of para No. 2 are incorrect and not admitted.
The respondents published news items in due course of their
professional responsibilities and the applicant miserably failed
to point out any type of malice and dishonesty on the part of
respondents.
3. That the contents of para No. 3 of the application are
incorrect. The applicant has not mentioned any reason or
quoted any material in this regards.

In view of the above, it is respectfully prayed that


the application may please be dismissed with costs.

Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems


fit, may graciously be granted.

Defendants,

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

Muhammad Mansha Sipra Vs. Ch. Younus Ali etc.

SUIT FOR RECOVERY.


Application U/O 39, R-1, 2 read with section 151 C.P.C.
Reply of application.

AFFIDAVIT of: -

Arif Moeen Ballay S/o Fakhar-ud-Din Ballay, Editor


daily “NAYA DAUR” Multan.

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, the contents of
which be considered as integral part of this
affidavit.

2. That all the contents of the affidavit are true and


correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
No part of it is false and nothing has been kept
concealed thereto.

DEPONENT