In the Court of Ch.

Abdul Sattar, Additional District Judge,

Multan.

H.B.F.C. Vs. Zaffar Iqbal Khan

RESTORATION OF APPEAL
Application U/O 3 & Sec-151 C.P.C.

WRITTEN REPLY.

Preliminary Objections: -

1. That no application for restoration of appeal was ever made

by H.B.F.C. H.B.F.C. is not party to the original application,
hence, this application from H.B.F.C. is not maintainable and
as such merits dismissal.

2. That appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution on 16.12.97.

Present application is made on 7.8.2002 i.e. after lapse of 4
years, 8 months and 22 days. By the lapse of time, a valuable
right has accrued to the respondent, which cannot be taken
away on an incompetent application. Application being barred
by time, merits dismissal.

3. That in para No. 4 of the application, it is stated that power of

attorney for making an application for restoration of appeal
was given on 16.12.97, which was misplaced and now the
same is searched out. This statement is factually wrong for the
reason that the said power of attorney is signed by the present
District Manager, Rana Sarwar, who on promotion, was
appointed to this post in the middle of year 2001. The date on
this document is shown as 16.12.97, which amounts to forgery
 for which the District Manager is liable to be prosecuted by
this Hon’ble Court U/s 476 Cr.P.C.

4. This application and affidavit shown to have been moved by

the present District Manager, but the same is not signed by
him. Application along-with affidavit is again defective,
which merits dismissal.

REPLY ON MERITS: -

1. That para No. 1 of the application is correct.

2. That para No. 2 of the application is correct to the extent that

appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution on 16.12.97. Rest
of the para as stated is incorrect, hence, denied.

3. That para No. 3 of the application is correct.

4. That para No. 4 of the application is false and incorrect. It is

incorrect that power of attorney was given on 16.12.97. It is
also incorrect that it was misplaced. Power of attorney
attached to this application is forged. It is also incorrect that
Mr. Talib Hussain had acted on behalf of the appellant.

Prayer of the applicant is based on false facts.

Affidavit is also false. Application incompetently made
merits dismissal, same be dismissed with costs.

Humble Respondent,

Dated: _______

(Zaffar Iqbal Khan)

Advocate
 In the Court of Ch. Abdul Sattar, Additional District Judge,
Multan.

H.B.F.C. Vs. Zaffar Iqbal Khan

RESTORATION OF APPEAL
Application U/O 3 & Sec-151 C.P.C.

WRITTEN REPLY.

AFFIDAVIT of: -
Zaffar Iqbal Khan Advocate High Court, Chamber
No. 124, District Courts, Multan.

I, the above named deponent do hereby

solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of
the above-titled written reply 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 Multan, this _____ day
of September 2002 that the contents of this
affidavit are true & correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief.
DEPONENT
 IN THE COURT OF SYED IMAM ALI SHAH,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MULTAN.

H.B.F.C. Vs. Zaffar Iqbal Khan

RESTORATION OF APPEAL
Application for amendment of restoration application.

WRITTEN REPLY.

Sir, written reply of the respondent is submitted as under: -

Preliminary Objections: -

1. That appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution on

16.12.1997. No application for restoration of appeal was ever
made by H.B.F.C. An application for restoration of appeal
was made by one Talib Hussain. Talib Hussain was not the
person aggrieved by the order of dismissal of appeal and as
such he has no locus standi to make the said application.
Application made by Talib Hussain was incompetent. Now,
H.B.F.C., after a lapse of more than 5 years, seeks
amendment by adding “H.B.F.C. Throng” before the name of
original applicant Talib Hussain so as to convert it into an
application moved by H.B.F.C. through Talib Hussain. Such
amendment shall deprive the respondent of the valuable right
accrued to him by lapse of time on dismissal of appeal for
non-prosecution. H.B.F.C. has no right to seek amendment of
an application, which is not made by it.

2. That H.B.F.C. is not entitled to seek amendment of

incompetent application for restoration of appeal after expiry
of more than 5 years from the date of original incompetent
application with the object to convert the same as if the
original application was moved by it. Such belated attempt of
H.B.F.C. to amend 3rd person’s application converting it in its
 own name, changing complexion of the application, is not
warranted by fact and law.

3. That H.B.F.C. has not furnished any justifiable explanation of

its conscious silence despite the knowledge of dismissal of
appeal for a number of years. This lapse of time has created a
valuable right, which cannot be ignored.

4. That amendment of the application cannot be allowed as it is

delayed too long and, if granted, it would cause injustice and
injury to the answering respondent.

REPLY ON FACTS: -

1. Para 1 of the application is correct. Appeal was dismissed for

non-prosecution on 16.12.97.

2. Para 2 of the application is incorrect. It is incorrect that

applicant has made an application for restoration of appeal.

3. Para 3 of the application is incorrect. No restoration

application was ever made by H.B.F.C.

4. Para 4 of the application is correct to the extent that name of

the applicant District Manager, H.B.F.C. is not mentioned. It
is submitted that name of the applicant cannot be substituted.

5. Para 5 of the application is incorrect. Whole complexion of

the application will be changed.

6. Para 6 of the application is incorrect as stated. Only H.B.F.C.

was the aggrieved against the order of dismissal of appeal,
but he failed to make restoration application for more than 5
years and now, malafidely, he seeks to adopt application of
3rd person when fresh application is barred by time.

7. That para 7 of the application is incorrect. Application for

amendment is based on malafide.

Prayer of the applicant is misconceived.

Application is liable to be rejected, same be dismissed
with costs.

Respondent,

Dated: 26.04.2003

Zafar Iqbal Khan Advocate