Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 111 views

    Reply

    Uploaded by

    api-3745637
    The respondents have submitted a reply in response to an application seeking to vacate a stay order issued on July 10, 2002. They argue that the allegations of procuring the stay order through misrepresentation are incorrect and baseless. They also argue that vacating the stay order would cause irreparable loss to the appellants and adversely affect their irrigation. Finally, they request that the application be dismissed with costs as it is against the law and facts.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Reply

    Uploaded by

    api-3745637
    111 views2 pages
    The respondents have submitted a reply in response to an application seeking to vacate a stay order issued on July 10, 2002. They argue that the allegations of procuring the stay order through misrepresentation are incorrect and baseless. They also argue that vacating the stay order would cause irreparable loss to the appellants and adversely affect their irrigation. Finally, they request that the application be dismissed with costs as it is against the law and facts.

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The respondents have submitted a reply in response to an application seeking to vacate a stay order issued on July 10, 2002. They argue that the allegations of procuring the stay order through misrepresentation are incorrect and baseless. They also argue that vacating the stay order would cause irreparable loss to the appellants and adversely affect their irrigation. Finally, they request that the application be dismissed with costs as it is against the law and facts.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    111 views2 pages

    Reply

    Uploaded by

    api-3745637
    The respondents have submitted a reply in response to an application seeking to vacate a stay order issued on July 10, 2002. They argue that the allegations of procuring the stay order through misrepresentation are incorrect and baseless. They also argue that vacating the stay order would cause irreparable loss to the appellants and adversely affect their irrigation. Finally, they request that the application be dismissed with costs as it is against the law and facts.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    In the Court of Mr.

    Javed Mahmood Sindhu,


    Additional District Judge, Multan.

    Muhammad Anwar & others Vs. D.C.O. & others

    (CIVIL APPEAL)

    Application for vacation of stay order issued on 10.7.2002.

    Reply on behalf of respondents/appellants.

    Respondents/applicants humbly submit as under: -

    1. That para No. 1 need not to be replied.

    2. In reply to para No. 2 it is submitted that the allegation of


    procuring stay order by misrepresentation is incorrect and
    baseless.

    3. Para No. 3 of the application is incorrect and not admitted.


    The stay order is required to be kept intact. The application is
    liable to rejection in the interest of justice inter-alia on the
    following: -

    GROUNDS

    i) Incorrect. Not admitted. The respondents of their own


    by taking the law in their hand tried to install the
    impugned outlets. When objected by the appellants,
    they became furious and resultantly many persons from
    the appellants side were seriously injured.

    ii) Incorrect. Not admitted. The appellants will have to


    face irreparable loss if the stay order is vacated.
    iii) Incorrect. Not admitted. Due to the installation of new
    outlet upstream, the outlet of respondents/appellants it
    will adversely effect their irrigation and the applicants/
    respondents will get water from the share of the
    downstream outlets especially the tail outlet (the outlets
    of the appellants).

    iv) That in reply to this para, it is submitted that through


    omission the names of 13 persons could not be included
    whereas power of attorney of all the 43 persons is
    present on the file. For the rectification of this error,
    application under order 1, rule 10 filed before this
    Hon’ble Court has been accepted on 19.7.2002.

    v) Incorrect, the requirements of order 43, rule 3 have


    been complied with.

    vi) In reply to this para, it is submitted that under the Canal


    rules, the respondents are not entitled to any extra
    supply for orchards. The suit has been filed against the
    fixing of new outlet just upstream, the tail outlets. The
    respondents of their own have planned to change the
    size of their outlet just to defeat the case of appellants,
    as such they are not entitled to any relief.

    In view of the above-stated facts, it is


    respectfully prayed that the instant application
    being against the law and facts, may very
    graciously be dismissed with cost.

    Respondents/Appellants,

    Dated: ________

    Through: -
    Ziad Ahmad Mufti,
    Advocate High Court,
    6-Allama Iqbal Block,
    District Courts, Multan.

    You might also like