BEFORE THE HON’BLE DISTRICT JUDGE, MULTAN.

Appeal No. _______________/2000

National Security Insurance Company Muhammad Ismail Aiwan-i-

Science, Ferozepur Road, Lahore, through Humayun Naseer Shaikh.
Appellant/Defendant
VERSUS
Tariq Mehmood Hassan S/o Muhammad Rafiq Sabir, caste Butt, R/o
Riaz Motors Building, Abdali Road, Multan.
Respondent/Plaintiff

APPEAL UNDER SECTION 96 CIVIL

PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 AGAINST
JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 16.9.2000
PASSED BY MR. PERVEZ IQBAL SIPRA
LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE 1ST CLASS, MULTAN
WHEREBY THE CIVIL SUIT TITLED TARIQ
MEHMOOD HASSAN VS. MIAN NASEER A.
SHAIKH ETC. WAS DECREED

RELIEF CLAIMED: - TO ACCEPT THE APPEAL,

SET ASIDE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 16.9.2000 AND THE SUIT OF
RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF BE DISMISSED
WITH COSTS.

VALUE OF APPEAL: - RS. 1,735/- AS PER CIVIL SUIT.

Respectfully Sheweth: -

1. That respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,735/-

before the learned trial court which was dismissed by Mr.
Muhammad Zubair Aziz Cheema, learned Civil Judge, 1st Class,
 Multan vide judgment & decree dated 12.5.1999.
Respondent/plaintiff preferred appeal against the judgment and
decree of Civil Court which was accepted by Mr. Muhammad
Saddique Tabassum, learned Additional District Judge, Multan
vide judgment and decree dated 26.10.1999 and case was
remanded to trial court for fresh decision after giving another
opportunity of evidence to the parties. Both parties adduced
evidence and learned trial court vide impugned judgment &
decree dated 16.9.2000 decreed accepted the Civil Suit and in
favour of plaintiff and against defendant, same was decreed
with costs. Impugned judgment and decree dated 16.9.2000
learned trial court is against law and facts, therefore, liable to be
set aside inter alia on the following: -

GROUNDS

A) That impugned judgment dated 16.9.2000 is against facts &

law.

B) That learned Trial Court did not appreciate law applicable in

the case of respondent/plaintiff.

C) That learned Trial Court relied upon the non-statutory rules,

which have no force and on the basis of such rules, impugned
judgment and decree is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

D) That learned Trial Court on the same day dismissed the

following three identical nature of Civil Suits having same facts
and evidence: -

(i) Muhamamd Saeed Vs. Mian Nasir A. Sheikh etc.

(ii) Ghulam Rasool Vs. Mian Nasir A. Sheikh etc.

(iii) Rana Abdul Latif Vs. Mian Nasir A. Sheikh etc.

In the case of Civil Suit of respondent/plaintiff wherein

impugned judgment and decree was delivered and above-titled
three cases, facts and evidences are same and identical,
therefore, different decision by accepting and decreeing the
Civil Suit of respondent/plaintiff is illegal. Photo-copy of
judgment in above cases is attached.
E) That learned Trial Court allowed to be exhibited photo-state
documents, despite the facts same were not relied in FARD
PAISH KARDA/MUNHASRA, therefore, reading of such
evidence by the Trial Court is illegal and on the basis of such
evidence, impugned judgment and decree is nullity in the eye of
law.

F) That learned Trial Court decided issue No. 3 against facts and
law.

G) That learned Trial Court decided issue No. 4 against law and
evidence available on the record.

H) That the learned Trial Court decided issue No. 5 against law
and evidence available on the record. Learned Trial Court gave
findings on the aforesaid issue, which are totally wrong and
contrary to evidence available on record.

I) That learned Trial Court decided issue No. 6a against law and
evidence available on the record.

J) That learned Trial Court decided issue No. 6 against the

appellant/defendant and in favour of respondent/plaintiff is
against law and evidence available on the record. Learned Trial
Court did not appreciate the law applicable in the respondent/
plaintiff’s case and also did not read over properly evidence
available on the record, as such judgment is a result of non-
reading of evidence.

K) That impugned judgment is based on surmises and conjectures,

therefore, not sustainable in the eyes of law.

L) That learned Trial Court passed judgment for recovery of Rs.

17,25/- whereas decree has been issued for Rs. 1,735/-. It is
important to mention here that learned Trial Court discussed the
matter of gratuity in the respondent/plaintiff’s case, despite the
fact it was not a subject matter of civil suit. It reveals that
learned Trial Court passed a stereo-type judgment in all nine
cases including respondent/plaintiff’s case which were decreed
in favour of plaintiff and against defendant, as such impugned
judgment is against law.

M) That impugned judgment is the result of non-reading of

evidence available on the record, therefore, same is not
sustainable in the eyes of law.

N) That respondent/plaintiff failed to produce any evidence

regarding balance/credit of his leave, neither he got summon
any such record of defendant, therefore, learned Trial Court
illegally held that respondent/plaintiff is entitled to receive
amount of leave encashment.

2. That appeal is within time as per Limitation Act, 1908.

3. That the value of appeal as per Civil Suit is Rs. 1,735/-, which
is exempted from levy of court fee.
 In view of the above, it is respectfully prayed
that record of Trial Court in Civil Suit titled S.M.
Asmatullah Vs. Mian Naseer A. Shaikh may kindly be
summoned and above-titled appeal may very kindly be
accepted and impugned judgment and decree dated
16.9.2000 passed by Mr. Pervez Iqbal Sipra learned Civil
Judge 1st Class, Multan in Civil Suit titled S.M. Asmatullah
Vs. Mian Naseer A. Shaikh etc. may very kindly be set aside
and suit for recovery of respondent/plaintiff may very kindly
be dismissed with costs.
Any other relief which this Hon’ble court deems
appropriate in the circumstances of the case may very
kindly be awarded to the appellant in the interest of
justice.
Humble Appellant,

Through: -
MUHAMMAD AMIN MALIK RIAZ-UL-HASSAN
Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court,
38-Muhammadan Block, District Courts, Multan.
 BEFORE THE HON’BLE DISTRICT JUDGE, MULTAN.

Appeal No. _______________/2000

National Security Insurance Company Limited

Versus
Muhammad Aslam Farooqui

APPEAL U/S 96 C.P.C.

AFFIDAVIT of: -
Mian Humayun Nasir A. Sheikh S/o Mian Nasir A.
Sheikh, caste Sheikh, Acting Chairman National Security
Insurance Company Limited Awane Science, Ismail
Building Ferozepur Road, Lahore.

I, the above named deponent do hereby

solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of
the above-titled appeal are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has
been kept concealed thereto.

DEPONENT

Verification: -
Verified on oath at ________, this ___day
of November 2000 that the contents of above-
mentioned affidavit are true & correct to the best
of my knowledge and belief.

DEPONENT
 IN THE COURT OF MUHAMMAD ARSHAD MALIK,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MULTAN.

Appeal No. _______________/2000

National Security Insurance Company Limited

Versus
Altaf Hussain

APPEAL U/S 96 C.P.C.

STAY APPLICATION.

AFFIDAVIT of: -
Mian Humayun Nasir A. Sheikh S/o Mian Nasir A.
Sheikh, caste Sheikh, Acting Chairman National Security
Insurance Company Limited Awane Science, Ismail
Building Ferozepur Road, Lahore.

I, the above named deponent do hereby

solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of
the above-mentioned stay application in above-
titled appeal are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief and nothing has been
kept concealed thereto.

DEPONENT

Verification: -
Verified on oath at ________, this ___day
of ___________ 2000 that the contents of above-
mentioned affidavit are true & correct to the best
of my knowledge and belief.

DEPONENT
 IN THE COURT OF MUHAMMAD ARSHAD MALIK,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MULTAN.

Appeal No. _______________/2000

National Security Insurance Company Limited

PETITIONER/APPELLANT
Vs
Rana Abdul Hameed
RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF

APPEAL U/S 96 OF C.P.C. 1908.

APPLICATION UNDER O. XXXIX RULE 1,2
READ WITH S. 151 C.P.C. FOR AD-INTERIM
INJUNCTION/SUSPENSION OF IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 16.9.2000
PASSED BY LEARNED TRIAL COURT IN THE
CASE OF RESPONDENT /PLAINTIFF.

Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That above-titled appeal is pending adjudication before this
Hon’ble Court and is fixed for 2.12.2000 for preliminary
arguments. Contents of above-titled appeal be read as integral
part of this application.

2. That prima facie petitioner/appellant has got a very good and

arguable case and there are bright chances of acceptance of
above-titled appeal on merits.

3. That in case the judgment and decree dated 16.9.2000 passed

by the learned trial court in the case of respondent/plaintiff is
not stayed/suspended; petitioner/appellant will suffer an
irreparable loss at the hands of respondent.
4. That balance of convenience lies in favour of
petitioner/appellant. Affidavit attached.

In view of above, it is respectfully prayed that

above-mentioned petition may very kindly be accepted
and impugned judgment and decreed dated 16.9.2000
may very graciously be suspended till final disposal of
the above-titled appeal.
PETITIONER/APPELLANT
Dated: ________

Through: -
MUHAMMAD AMIN MALIK RIAZ-UL-HASSAN
Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court,
38-Muhammadan Block, District Courts, Multan.