IN THE HONOURABLE LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE

(BANKING JURISDICTION)

C.M. No. 242-B//2010

In
COS No.66/2009
Re
MCB
Versus
CAPITAL INDUSTRIES (PVT) LTD & OTHERS

REPLY TO THE TITLED APPLICATION FILED BY THE

RESPONDENT NO. 7

Respectfully Sheweth,
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
1. That the titled Application is liable to be rejected as incompetent as the
Applicant/Defendant No. 7 has filed the titled Application for final disposal of the
Suit without complying with the condition on which Leave to Appear and Defend
the Suit was granted to the Applicant/Defendant No. 7, viz. subject to provision
of surety bond in the amount of Rs. 3.00 million.

2. That the issue raised in the titled Application cannot be decided in a summary way
without recording evidence on the issue raised and detailed arguments on merits.
The Leave was granted vide order dated 07-07-09 precisely for that very purpose
so that the issue raised in the PLA No. 82-B/2009 filed by the Defendant No. 7 (as
well as in the titled Application) may be decided after recording of evidence and
detailed arguments. The titled Application however seeks to circumvent the due
process of law by substituting the procedure of a regular suit with that of an
interlocutory application. The titled Application therefore is liable to be dismissed
as misconceived.

REPLY ON MERITS
1. That averments made in paragraph no. 1 to 4 alongwith averments made in
paragraphs (a) to (j) of the Grounds in the titled Application are denied as false,
misconceived, misleading and without any factual basis. In reply, averments and
submissions made in Plaintiffs/Respondents REPLY TO THE PLA NO. 82B/2009 are reiterated. It is submitted that averments made in the said Reply may
be read and considered as an integral part of the instant Reply. A copy of the
REPLY TO THE PLA NO. 82-B/2009 and Personal Gurantee submitted by the
Applicant /Defendant No. 7 are placed herewith as Mark-I and II.

PRAYER
In view of above submissions it is denied that the Applicant/Defendant No. 7 is entitled to
any relief as prayed for in the titled Application. It is further prayed that
a. The Applicant/Defendant No. 7 be directed to forthwith comply with the
condition attached with the grant of Leave to Appear and Defend
b. On failure of the Applicant/Defendant No. 7 to comply with the above, the Leave
granted to him may be revoked and the Suit decreed against him
c. That the titled Application be dismissed with costs.

MCB Bank/Plaintiff
Through

SHEHZAD HAIDER
Advocate High Court

SALMAN AKRAM RAJA

M.A. (Cambridge)
LL.M (Harvard) LL.M (London)
Advocate Supreme Court

IN THE HONOURABLE LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE

(BANKING JURISDICTION)

C.M. No. 242-B//2010

In
COS No.66/2009
Re
MCB
Versus
CAPITAL INDUSTRIES (PVT) LTD & OTHERS

REPLY TO THE TITLED APPLICATION FILED BY

RESPONDENT NO. 7
AFFIDAVIT OF Muhammad Rohail Akhtar, VP/Cheif Manager, Corporate Branch,
Lahore
I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly swear, affirm and declare as under:

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
1. That the titled Application is liable to be rejected as incompetent as the
Applicant/Defendant No. 7 has filed the titled Application for final disposal of the

Suit without complying with the condition on which Leave to Appear and Defend
the Suit was granted to the Applicant/Defendant No. 7, viz. subject to provision
of surety bond in the amount of Rs. 3.00 million.
2. That the issue raised in the titled Application cannot be decided in a summary way
without recording evidence on the issue raised and detailed arguments on merits.
The Leave was granted vide order dated 07-07-09 precisely for that very purpose
so that the issue raised in the PLA No. 82-B/2009 filed by the Defendant No. 7 (as
well as in the titled Application) may be decided after recording of evidence and
detailed arguments. The titled Application however seeks to circumvent the due
process of law by substituting the procedure of a regular suit with that of an
interlocutory application. The titled Application therefore is liable to be dismissed
as misconceived.

REPLY ON MERITS
1. That averments made in paragraph no. 1 to 4 alongwith averments made in
paragraphs (a) to (j) of the Grounds in the titled Application are denied as false,
misconceived, misleading and without any factual basis. In reply, averments and
submissions made in Plaintiffs/Respondents REPLY TO THE PLA NO. 82B/2009 are reiterated. It is submitted that averments made in the said Reply may
be read and considered as an integral part of the instant Reply. A copy of the
REPLY TO THE PLA NO. 82-B/2009 and Personal Gurantee submitted by the
Applicant /Defendant No. 7 are placed herewith as Mark-I and II.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION
Verified on oath at ________ on this_______ day of_________, 2010 that the
contents of the above affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and
that nothing has been concealed therein.

DEPONENT