1

IN THE COURT OF MUHAMMAD IMRAN KHAN, LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE,

In re:

Mst. RABIA WD/O SAIF ULLAH R/O BAND ROAD, LAHORE.

Versus

DIRECTOR LICENSING AUTHORITY PUNCH ROAD, LAHORE ETC.

(SUIT FOR DECLARATION WITH PERMANENT AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION ALONG WITH
CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF)

WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF ANSWERING DEFENDANTS

Respectfully Sheweth:
That the above titled civil suit is pending adjudication before this honourable

court and fixed for 06.11.2019 for appearance and submission of written statement

on behalf of defendants.

Brief Facts:
Brief facts of the suit are that a sand mining lease regarding excavation of

ordinary sand, ghassar and bhassar titled Ganja Kalan/ Begum Kot situated at

District Lahore was granted in the name of Rabia Bibi through open auction against

a bid of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- for a period of two years w.e.f. 19.09.2018 to 18.09.2020.

(Annexure-A) The plaintiff paid first Installment amounting to Rs. 2,50,00,000/-

along with 10% Income Tax at the spot and according to the clause 2 of the

allotment letter, the plaintiff was required to deposit 2 nd Installment amounting to

Rs. 2,50,00,000/- with 10% income tax in the government treasury up to 19.03.2019,

3rd installment amounting to Rs. 2,50,00,000/- (with 10% income tax) is required to

be paid on 19.09.2019 whereas 4th Installment said amount on 19.03.2020

subsequently. (Annexure-B) The plaintiff paid Rs. 200,00,000/- out of 3 rd

Installment whereas, income tax is still pending with the plaintiff. The plaintiff had
 2

not deposited the income tax relating to 2 nd and 3rd Installment which is also

recoverable amount on the part of plaintiff alongwith balance amount of 3 rd

Installment. The plaintiff through courts order is blackmailing the defendants.

Preliminary Objections

1. That the plaintiff has filed the above titled suit with malafide intention,

ulterior motive and just to blackmail and harass the Government

functionaries. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

2. That the plaintiff has no cause of action against the answering defendants,

therefore, the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to the

extent of answering defendant.

3. That the plaintiff has a departmental remedy under Rule 234 & 235 of Punjab

Mining Concession Rules 2002, for removal of her grievance if any, hence,

the suit is not maintainable in the eye of law.

4. That according to ruled 236 of the Punjab Mining Concession Rules 2002, the

jurisdiction of the Civil Court is expressly barred by law as matter falls within

the purview of departmental authority. Hence, the plaint is liable to be

rejected.

5. That in policy matter; jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred by law. Therefore,

the suit is liable to be dismissed.

6. That prima facie no case exists in favour of the plaintiff, since no right is

vested to the plaintiff against the answering defendants, hence, the suit is not

maintainable in the eye of law and liable to be dismissed.

7. That the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and tried to

mingle the facts in his favour for getting sympathy of the Honourable Court

while concealing the actual facts of the suit. Therefore the plaint, being false,

frivolous and vexatious, is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost.

8. That the plaintiff is not entitled to get any relief under section 56 (d) of the

Specific Relief Act, 1877, according to the section ibid that no injunction can
 3

be granted against the public functionaries. Hence, the suit is liable to be

dismissed.

9. That no suit can be filed without impleading the government of the Punjab as

necessary party according to section 79 of CPC 1908. Hence, the suit is liable

to be dismissed.

ON MERITS

1. That para under reply is correct to this extent that the plaintiff is a registered

contractor with the Mines & Minerals Departmentm Punjab.

2. That para under reply is correct to this extent that the plaintiff was succeed to

obtain a sand mining lease titled Ganja Kalan/ Begum Kot situated at District

Lahore through open auction against a bid of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- (along with

income tax) for a period of two years w.e.f. 19.09.2018 to 18.09.2020

regarding excavation of ordinary sand, ghassar and bhassar.

3. That para under reply is correct to this extent that the plaintiff deposited the

first Installment amounting to Rs. 2,50,00,000/- along with 10% Income Tax

at the possession of land regarding excavation of ordinary sand was handed

over to the plaintiff at the spot. The work on the part of plaintiff is still

continue at the spot.

4. That para under reply is denied being incorrect. The plaintiff submitted an

application for extension of time regarding submission of 2 nd Installment. But

the plaintiff ignored this fact that according to rule 22 of the Work Order

dated 19.09.2018, no excuse shall be regarded in case of any regretted

situation. (Copy attached) So, application was not entertainable for any relief

if desired. Whereas, the plaintiff has deposited only 2 nd Installment on

03.10.2019 and income tax amounting to Rs. 25,00,000/- is left to be paid on

the part of plaintiff. Furthermore work o f the plaintiff was found going on

without any hindrance and hurdles. as per inspection reports dated ………
 4

…………………………………………………respectively. (Copy enclosed

as Annexure A1, A2, A3,A4)

5. That para under reply is denied being incorrect. The 2 nd Installment has been

paid and only income tax is left to be paid.

6. That para under reply is correct to this extent that the plaintiff was issued

notice No. MLDD M&MM dated 27.05.2019 for submission of amount of

2nd Installment which has been paid on 03.10.2019 and only Income tax

relating to 2nd installment is left to be paid.

7. That para under reply is correct to this extent that the plaintiff filed a civil suit

and succeeded to obtained Injunctive Order dated 14.06.2019 on the basis of

misrepresentation, false information which is contrary to facts.

8. That para under reply is denied being incorrect.

9. That para under reply is denied being incorrect and misleading. The plaintiff

has deposited the 2nd Installment only and income tax amounting to Rs.

25,00,000/- is left to be paid. Furthermore, the plaintiff has also deposited the

partially amount Rs. 2,00,00,000/- out of 3rd Installment. Whereas, amounting

to Rs. 50,00,000/- of balance amount of 3rd Installment alongwith 10%

Income Tax is still recoverable on the part of plaintiff.

10. That para under reply is denied being incorrect and misleading. All the

actions have been taken according to law, rules and regulations as mentioned

in Punjab Mining Concession Rules 2002.

11. That para under reply is denied being incorrect and misleading. All the

measures have been taken in accordance with law no violation of court order

has been made.

12. That para under reply is denied being incorrect and misleading. No cause of

action occurs in favour of the plaintiff against the answering defendants.

13. That para under reply needs no comments.

14. That para under reply is denied being incorrect. The suit is not properly

assessed and valued. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed in limine.

PRAYER
In view of the above submission, it is humbly prayed that the suit of

the plaintiff is baseless, devoid of any merits and without jurisdiction and therefore,

the suit may kindly be dismissed alongwith heavy cost in the best interest of justice.

It is further prayed that the request of the plaintiff for permanent

injunction may kindly be declined for interim relief in shape of getting decreed of

permanent injunction.

Any other relief which this learned civil court deems fit and proper

may also be awarded.

ANSWERING DEFENDANTS
Through
ADDL. GOVT. PLEADER

VERIFICATION:
Verified on oath at Lahore on this 06.11.2019 that the contents of Para No. 1
to 8 of preliminary objections are true and correct to the best of our knowledge and rest of
Paras on merits are correct to the best of my information.

ANSWERING DEFENDANTS
 6

IN THE COURT OF MUHAMMAD IMRAN KHAN, LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE,

In re:

Mst. RABIA WD/O SAIF ULLAH R/O BAND ROAD, LAHORE.

(SUIT FOR DECLARATION WITH PERMANENT AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION ALONG WITH
CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF)

WRITTEN REPLY OF APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 39 RULES 1&2 READ WITH SECTION
151 CPC ON BEHALF OF ANSWERING RESPONDENTS

Respectfully Sheweth;

1. That the above titled suit is pending before this honourable court and fixed for
today i.e.06.11.2019 for submission of written reply on behalf of answering
respondents.
2. That the contents of this written reply may be considered as integral part of
written statement.
3. That para under reply is denied being incorrect. No balance of convenience lies
in the favour of the petitioner; hence, the application in hand is liable to be
rejected.
4. That the petitioner has no prima facie good and arguable case in his favour
whereas, the answering respondents has good and arguable case in their favour.
5. That para under reply is vehemently denied being incorrect. The petitioner has no
irreparable loss and injury in case of vacation of stay. On the other hand, if stay
has not been vacated, the answering respondent will suffer irreparable loss and
injury.
In view of the above submission, it is humbly prayed that the above titled
application may very kindly be rejected being false, baseless and devoid of any
merits.
Any other relief which this honourable court deems fit may also be awarded.

ANSWERING RESPONDENTS
Through

ADDL. GOVT. PLEADER

IN THE COURT OF MUHAMMAD IMRAN KHAN, LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE,

In re:

Mst. RABIA WD/O SAIF ULLAH R/O BAND ROAD, LAHORE.

(SUIT FOR DECLARATION WITH PERMANENT AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION ALONG WITH
CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF)

WRITTEN REPLY OF APPLICATION U/S 36 & 34 READ WITH SECTION 151 CPC ON BEHALF
OF ANSWERING RESPONDENTS

Respectfully Sheweth;

That the petitioner has filed the above said application in the titled suit which

is pending in this honourable court and fixed for today on 06.11.2019.

Preliminary Objections

1. That the above said application is not entertainable in the eye of law as it is

based on mingle of facts, misrepresentation and false information which is

contrary to the facts.

2. That the petitioner has filed the above titled civil suit on 04.10.2019 which is

adjourned for notices on 07.10.2019 for summoning notice to the answering

Defendants/respondents.

3. That on 07.10.2019, this honorurable court vide orders, “suspended the

operation of impugned notice and restrained the respondents to cancel the

lease agreement illegally till the next date of hearing” without mentioning

the notice date which is likely to be suspended.

4. That the answering respondents did not violate the order dated 07.10.2019 as

this is not in the knowledge of the answering respondents.

5. That the petitioner has deposited the 2 nd Installment on 03.10.2019 and

income tax amounting to Rs. 25,00,000/- is left to be paid. Furthermore, the

petitioner has also deposited the partially amount Rs. 2,00,00,000/- out of 3 rd

Installment. Hence, the grievance of the petitioner is devoid of force and

without justification and titled application is liable to be rejected.

6. That balance amounting to Rs. 50,00,000/- out of 3 rd Installment alongwith

10% Income Tax of 2nd and 3rd Installment is still recoverable on the part of

the petitioner and the petitioner herself is violating the terms and condition as

mentioned in the work order. Hence, the application is not enforceable by law

7. That the petitioner through courts order is blackmailing and harassing the

respondents. The petitioner herself ignored this fact that according to rule 22

of the Work Order dated 19.09.2018, no excuse shall be regarded in case of

any regretted situation. (Copy attached) So, application was not entertainable

under the rules for any relief if desired.

ON FACTS:

1. That para under reply is correct to this extent that the petitioner was

succeeded to obtain a sand mining lease regarding excavation of ordinary

sand, ghassar and bhassar titled Ganja Kalan/ Begum Kot situated at District

Lahore through open auction against a bid of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- for a period

of two years w.e.f. 19.09.2018 to 18.09.2020. The plaintiff paid first

Installment amounting to Rs. 2,50,00,000/- along with 10% Income Tax at the

spot and according to the clause 2 of the allotment letter, the plaintiff was

required to deposit 2nd Installment amounting to Rs. 2,50,00,000/- with 10%

income tax in the government treasury up to 19.03.2019, 3 rd installment

amounting to Rs. 2,50,00,000/- (with 10% income tax) is required to be paid

on 19.09.2019 whereas 4th Installment said amount on 19.03.2020

subsequently. The petitioner only paid Rs. 200, 00,000/- out of 3 rd

Installment whereas, income tax is still pending with the petitioner. The
 9

petitioner had not deposited the income tax relating to 2 nd and 3rd Installment

which is also recoverable amount on the part of plaintiff alongwith balance

amount of 3rd Installment. The petitioner through courts order is blackmailing

the respondents. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner herself

ignored this fact that according to rules 22 of the Work Order dated

19.09.2018, no excuse shall be regarded in case of any regretted situation.

(Copy attached) So, application is not entertainable for any relief if desired.

2. That para under reply is correct to this extent that the petitioner was issued

notice No. MLDD M&MM dated 27.05.2019 for submission of 2 nd

Installment amounting to Rs. 2,50,00,000/- with 10% income tax in the

government treasury which is due on 19.03.2019. It is pertinent to mention

that the petitioner has deposited the 2nd Installment amounting to Rs.

2,50,00,000/- on 03.10.2019. Whereas, 10% Income tax is left to be paid in

the Government treasury. Furthermore, the answering respondents did not

violate the courts orders dated 07.10.2019 as the petitioner is blackmailing the

respondents.

3. That para under reply is denied being incorrect and misleading. The

answering respondents were unaware about the orders dated 07.10.2019

issued by this honourable court. The petitioner was never forced or threatened

in any manners. All the measures were taken in accordance with law.

4. That para under reply is correct to this extent that the petitioner was issued

notice dated 28.08.2019 for submission of 2nd Installment alongwith 10%

Income Tax, whereas, the 2nd Installment has been paid on 03.10.2019

without 10% Income Tax. The petitioner is still the defaulter of amounting to

Rs. 50,00,000/- out of 3rd Installment and 10% Income tax of 2nd and 3rd

Installments, whereas, the remaining story is denied being incorrect.

PRAYER
 10

In view of the above submission, it is humbly prayed that the above titled
application may very kindly be rejected being false, baseless and devoid of any
merits.
Any other relief which this honourable court deems fit may also be awarded.

ANSWERING RESPONDENTS
Through

ADDL. GOVT. PLEADER