IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,

MULTAN.

R.F.A. No. ____________/2001

M/s Man Corporation, Housing Colony No. 1, Water Works Road,

Sumandri District Faisalabad, through Muhammad Aslam its
proprietor.
Appellant/Respondent
VERSUS
M/s Asia Feeds (Pvt.) Ltd., 395-Shams Abad, Humayun Road, Old
Chungi No. 9, Khanewal Road, Multan, through Dr. Ghulam Nabi,
its Chief Executive/Proprietor.
Respondent/Plaintiff

Appeal U/s 96 C.P.C. against the judgment

& decree dated 19.9.2001 passed by the
learned Additional District Judge, Multan
Mr. Ch. Abdul Sattar, by which the suit of
plaintiff/respondent under order 37, rule 2
C.P.C. was decreed against the
defendant/appellant with costs.

CLAIM IN APPEAL: -
To accept the appeal and set aside the
impugned judgment & decree and also the
suit of plaintiff be dismissed throughout
with costs.

Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That the names and addresses of the parties have correctly been
given for the purpose of their summons and citations.

2. That the defendant/respondent filed a suit on 8.5.99 under order

37, rule 2 C.P.C. for the recovery of amount Rs. 100,000/- on the
 bases of a cheque dated 15.2.97 alleged to be dishonoured on
22.2.97.

3. That the plaintiff/respondent after obtaining the favourable

reports upon the summons succeeded to get an ex-parte order
against the defendant/appellant on 8.9.99 and on the bases of ex-
parte evidence, resultantly the suit was decreed against the
defendant/ appellant on 13.12.99.

4. That the plaintiff/respondent filed an execution petition in which

the service of defendant/appellant was precured and
defendant/appellant submitted an application for setting aside the
ex-parte decree.

5. That on statement of the council for the plaintiff/respondent ex-

parte decree was set aside and after obtaining the necessary
permission to defend the suit a written statement was filed on
2.7.2000 and the following issues were framed: -

ISSUES

i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit

amount from the defendant as prayed for? OPP

ii) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus

standi to file this suit? OPD

iii) Whether the suit is defective and not proceedable in in

view of P.O. No. 2 of the written statement? OPD

iv) Whether the suit is barred by time? OPD

v) Whether this court lacks territorial jurisdiction to

adjudicate upon the matter? OPD

vi) Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed under section

58 of Negotiable Instruments Act? OPD

vii) Whether the defendant is entitled to special cost? OPD

 viii) Whether the disputed cheque was obtained by the
plaintiff from the defendant as a security? OPD

ix) Relief.

6. That the plaintiff/respondent produced an Accountant as P.W.1

and relied upon the documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P12. Dr. Muhammad
Aslam proprietor of defendant/appellant appeared as D.W.1 and
produced Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.3 and some photo-copies of receipts.
The learned trial court after the argument of parties, decreed the
suit of plaintiff/respondent. Copies of judgment and decree are
Annex “A & B”.

7. That the impugned judgment and decree is liable to be set aside

inter alia on the following: -

GROUNDS

i) That the impugned judgment and decree is against the

natural justice and law of equity.

ii) That the impugned judgment is against the law and

facts of the case.

iii) That the learned trial court assumed the territorial

jurisdiction wrongly, illegally and unlawfully.

iv) That the learned trial court announced the judgment

hastily and without application of judicial mind.

v) That the learned trial court miserably failed to take the

notice of section 58 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
and decided the issue No. 6 without any finding.

vi) That the finding on issue No. 1 and 7A is not according

to the evidence adduced by the parties. The learned trial
court could not explore the real controversy on this
point.
 vii) That the learned trial court did not discuss the evidence
produced by the appellant/defendant and gave undue
weight to the evidence of respondents.

viii) That the learned trial court did not refer and discuss the
judgments of the higher courts produced by the
appellant/respondent.

ix) That it is a prima facie case of mis-reading and non-

reading of the evidence.

x) That the impugned judgment caused a great mis-

carriage of justice to appellant/respondent.

Keeping in view the above-mentioned facts, it is

respectfully prayed that the impugned judgment and
decree may please be set aside by accepting this appeal
and the suit of the plaintiff/respondent may please be
dismissed with costs.
Any other writ, order, direction or relief which
this Hon’ble court deems fit, may please be extended in
the favour of petitioners to meet the ends of justice.

HUMBLE APPELLANT,

Dated: ___________

Through: -
Hammad Afzal Bajwa, Sheikh Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan. 28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20959 C.C. No. 20176

CERTIFICATE: -
Certified as per instructions of the client,
that this is the first appeal on the subject
matter. No such appeal has earlier been filed
before this Hon’ble Court.
Advocate
 IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

In re: C.M. No. _____________/2001

In
R.F.A. No. ____________/2001

M/s Man Corporation Vs. M/s Asia Feeds (Pvt.) Ltd.

STAY APPLICATION.

AFFIDAVIT of: -
Muhammad Aslam proprietor M/s Man Corporation,
Housing Colony No. 1, Water Works Road, Sumandri
District Faisalabad.

I, the above named deponent do hereby

solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of
the above-mentioned application 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 January 2001 that the contents of this affidavit
are true & correct to the best of my knowledge
and belief.

DEPONENT
 IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

In re: C.M. No. _____________/2001

In
R.F.A. No. ____________/2001

M/s Man Corporation Vs. M/s Asia Feeds (Pvt.) Ltd.

Application U/o 43, R-5 read with section 151 C.P.C.

Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That the contents of main appeal may please be treated as
integral part of this application.
2. That the impugned judgment and decree is against the natural
justice and law of equity.

3. That the impugned judgment is against the law and facts of

the case.

4. That the learned trial court assumed the territorial jurisdiction

wrongly, illegally and unlawfully.

5. That the learned trial court announced the judgment hastily

and without application of judicial mind.

6. That it is a prima facie case of mis-reading and non-reading of

the evidence.

7. That the applicant has a prima facie arguable case and there is
every possibility for the grant of relief prayed for.

8. That the execution petition is already filed by the respondent

and any action in this regard shall cause the humiliation and
harassment to the applicant, without availing the statutory
right.
 It is therefore, respectfully prayed that the
operation of impugned judgment & decree may please
be suspended and further proceedings in execution
petition may also be stayed.

Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems

fit, may also be granted in the interest of justice.

Humble Applicant,

Dated: _________

Through: -
Hammad Afzal Bajwa, Sheikh Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan. 28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20959 C.C. No. 20176
 IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

R.F.A. No. ______________/2001

M/s Man Corporation Vs. M/s Asia Feeds (Pvt.) Ltd.

INDEX

S. No. NAME OF DOCUMENTS ANNEXES PAGES

1 Urgent Form
2 Opening Sheet
3 Stamp Paper
4 Memo of appeal.
5 Copy of judgment and decree. A& B
6 Stay application.
7 Affidavit.
8 Vakalatnama

APPELLANT
Dated: _________

Through: -
Hammad Afzal Bajwa,
Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20959
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20176