In The Court Of Mr. Javed Iqbal, Civil Judge, Lahore
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View In The Court Of Mr. Javed Iqbal, Civil Judge, Lahore as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 2,399
- Pages: 8
Loading documents preview...
IN THE COURT OF MR. JAVED IQBAL, CIVIL JUDGE, LAHORE
In re : MASHAAL QURESHI ETC
VS.
LAHORE AMERICAN SCHOOL ETC
(SUIT FOR DAMAGES AMOUNTING TO RS.100 MILLION)
WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS
RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS,
1)
That the above titled suit is not maintainable in its present form as well as
not presented in accordance with law, hence the same is liable to be dismissed with costs.
2)
That the plaintiffs have got no cause of action to file the titled suit against
the answering defendants and as such the plaint of titled suit is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.
3)
That the plaintiffs have not come to this Hon'ble court with clean hands as
they are guilty of concealment and suppression of true facts, hence not entitled to any relief from this hon’ble court as prayed for.
4)
That the suit has been based upon facts misconceived in Law and facts, as
well as the plaintiffs have concealed the true and material facts of the case from
this hon’ble court, hence the titled suit is liable to be dismissed being false, frivolous and vexatious .
5)
That the plaintiff No.1 is a minor and is allegedly being represented
through plaintiff No.2, however, he has never been appointed as Guardian At Litem, as required under the law for the initiation of instant suit, hence the suit being improperly filed, is liable to be dismissed.
6)
That the titled suit is bad for mis-joinder of the parties, hence the same is
liable to be dismissed. Suit against Board of Directors of answering defendant No.1 is not legally tenable as the Board of Directors acts as a Policy making authority and does not intervene in administrative decisions like the matter of Scholarship, therefore, they have wrongly been indulged in this matter
7)
That the suit is barred by the provisions of Order VI Rule 15 of CPC as it is
apparent from the plaint itself that it has not been duly verified or presented to the court in accordance with the requirements of Law. Under the law, the plaint should have been verified with provision of necessary specifications as well as it should have been duly attested by an Oath Commissioner. However bare perusal of plaint reveals that the plaint has not been duly verified, As a consequence, there is no legal or valid plaint before the court, therefore the suit under reply is liable to be dismissed on this score alone.
ON MERITS 1.
That the contents with regard to the names and addresses of the parties
contain no factual controversy required to be specifically replied.
2.
That in reply to this para, it is humbly submitted that though the plaintiff
No.1 is a minor and filed the instant suit without any specification of being represented by whom. Even there is no appointment of Guardian At Litem either on record or even specified in the gist of the plaint. Hence the suit has unauthorizedly been filed. As far as the specification of admission of plaintiff No.1 in the answering defendant No.1 school and her excellence is concerned, it may respectfully be submitted here that the instant whole matter arose from non awarding of scholarship to the plaintiff No.1. In this regard, it is relevant to mention here that only very good academic record is not the criteria for awarding scholarship by the answering defendant No.1, which, as a matter of fact, is the only issue in the instant matter and all the remaining assertions have been manipulated by the plaintiffs to count the aforesaid issue.
3.
That in reply to para No.3 of the plaint, it is humbly submitted that the
answering defendant No.1 is one of the best educational institutions providing educational services of International standards in Pakistan since last many decades and the answering defendant No.1 is the leading educational institute in Pakistan.
4.
That the contents of this para 4 requires strict proof from the plaintiffs with
regard to academic record of plaintiff No.1 prior to her joining the answering defendant No.1 School.
5.
That the contents of para 5 of the plaint, though not admitted at its
entirety, have no nexus or made basis of the allegations and claim made in the instant suit.
6.
That the contents of this para 6 are not admitted and even have no nexus
or concern with the allegations as contained in the plaint or claim made therein.
7 to 10.
That in reply to the contents of these paras, it may respectfully be
submitted here that answering defendant No.1 announced new Scholarship Program for the year 2016-2017. The criteria for award of Scholarship was duly provided, which was mainly revolving upon two points i.e. (i) merit and (ii) need. This year there were only two applicants i.e. the plaintiff No.1 and one other student. After seeking applications along with requisite documents, both the students were interviewed by the Scholarship Committee. Considering the record and interviews, the Scholarship Committee found the other student more eligible for the award of scholarship. Obviously the primary consideration for award of scholarship was the above referred two points and mainly the point of “Need”. Said decision of Scholarship Committee was accordingly conveyed to both students through letters dated 17.08.2016. The Scholarship Committee found the other student more deserving. For that very reason, in the letter dated 17.08.2016, it was stated that Ms. Mashaal is welcome to apply again next year. Upon receipt of this letter dated 17.08.2016, the plaintiff No.3 addressed an Email dated 18.08.2016 asking for an appeal option but when she was responded the same day that no appeal is provided for Scholarship Committee decision, in her Email dated 19.08.2016, the plaintiff No.3 after making suggestions, also stated that those will help Mashaal i.e. plaintiff No.1 to prepare for next year. There was no such demand of provision of grounds and criteria for rejection of Mashaal’s application in Email dated
19.08.2017 of plaintiff No.3, as alleged in para 10 of plaint under reply. In Email of August 22, the Superintendent of answering defendant No.1 also provided the policy to the plaintiffs. On the other hand the plaintiff No.2 also thanked the School administration for considering her daughter for Scholarship in his Email of September 09, 2016. All the aforementioned circumstances clearly depicts that everything was normal and this has not been such an issue which has now been floated in such manner by the plaintiffs, thereby dragging the answering defendant No.1 i.e. the best educational institution into the instant baseless litigation.
11.
That the matter addressed to the Board of Directors i.e. defendant No.3 through
email has no relevance to the matter as the Board of Directors acts does not intervene in administrative decisions, unless the administrative decision is against the School Policy so they have wrongly been indulged in this matter by the plaintiff and suit is bad for msjoinder of parties.
12.
That subsequent allegations as contained in para 12 onwards of the plaint under
reply, are vague and has nothing to do with the actual situation. There was no campaign of maligning the plaintiff No.1 in any manner and for any reason. 13.
That in response to the contents of this para, it may respectfully be submitted
here that even after his return to Pakistan, the plaintiff No.2 also thanked the School administration for considering her daughter for Scholarship in his Email of September 09, 2016.
14 & 15.
That the contents of instant paras 14 & 15 are vehemently denied being
incorrect. The answering defendant No.2 being the Administrative Head of the answering defendant No.1 School, is responsible for all administrative actions for and on behalf of defendant No.1 school and to respond on behalf of the school. The decision of Scholarship Award was made by the Scholarship committee and not by the answering defendant No.2. As stated above, the Board of Directors merely acts for policy making and has no concern with such administrative decisions. It has wrongly been asserted that any campaign was launched against plaintiff No.1. The grant of scholarship to other student was made on merits and this is the sole issue on the basis of which this whole matter has been multiplied. 16.
That the contents of this para are vehemently denied being incorrect. The
incident of Quiz cheating was noted by the worthy Teachers, duly reported and conveyed to the plaintiffs. In response thereto, the father of Mashaal i.e. plaintiff No.2 in his email dated 3rd October 2016 categorically stated as under’
“I will speak to Mashaal and rest assure that this will not happen again.-----------------Since this is the first time she did so this retake would serve her as a warning. We will also speak to her and will make sure this does not happen again at all.” This clearly depicts that the plaintiffs were well aware of the actual situation of said matter. Therefore, it is a baseless allegation on the part of the plaintiffs that it was meant to defame and malign Ms Mashaal or to force her to leave school. It is also relevant to mention here that the plaintiffs No.2 and 3 themselves withdrew the plaintiff No.1 from the answering defendant No.1 School as intimated through email dated 12.10.2016 and thereafter cleared all dues upon school leaving on 14.10.2016, without any allegation at that time. Hence at this juncture any alleged claim of plaintiffs is untenable.
17.
That the contents of this para are denied being incorrect. the fact of the
matter is that during SISA tournament while on ride, the plaintiff No.1 demonstrated disrespect and insubordination towards the Coaches which matter was duly reported by the Teachers and coaches and accordingly the Secondary Principal had to take action of suspension from school, in terms of policies of answering defendant No.1. Said decision was duly conveyed to the plaintiffs vide letter dated October 04, 2016. There was nothing in violation of any disciplinary proceedings and never meant to target the plaintiff No.1.
18.
That the contents as narrated in this para are vehemently denied. There
was absolutely no malice on the part of the answering defendants. The answering defendant No.1 is a prestigious and leading Educational Organization providing the best educational services since last over six decades in Pakistan. The answering defendant No.1 is providing the best quality Education and is known throughout the World for its educational services and for this very reason alongside the Pakistani students a number of foreign students are also being taking education from the defendant No.1 school. There was no such attempt to destroy any student’s career.
However, it may respectfully be submitted here that nobody is allowed to disrupt and commit breach of any discipline at any stage, which the plaintiff No.1 has committed.
19.
That the contents of this para are absolutely false and incorrect and hence
denied vehemently. The titled suit has been filed on the basis of untrue and false assertions and the plaintiffs have concealed the true facts of the case to mislead this hon’ble court. The scholarship was granted by the Committee on merits.
20.
That the contents of this para are denied vehemently being incorrect.
There was absolutely nothing malicious campaign against the plaintiff No.1 in any manner. This whole issue was raised by the plaintiffs when the scholarship was given to another deserving student. It never meant that plaintiff No.1 was refused or declined but the scholarship was given to a more deserving candidate and there was no adverse action against the plaintiff No.1. Mere non-award of
scholarship does not mean that the right of quality education was denied to the plaintiff No.1.
21.
That the contents of para No.21 of the plaint are denied being incorrect
and false. The legal Notice sent on behalf of the plaintiff was duly responded.
22.
Denied vehemently. The plaintiff has been dealt in accordance with law
and policies of the answering defendant No.1. There was absolutely no injustice done to anyone.
23.
Denied being incorrectly stated. Through the instant suit under reply false,
frivolous and baseless allegations have been leveled against the answering defendants to injure the repute and dignity of the answering defendants, for which answering defendants reserve their right to take the legal actions at all available forums. The alleged break up of damages is false and frivolous and without any substantiation. On the other hand, it is also relevant to mention here that the plaintiffs No.2 and 3 themselves withdrew the plaintiff No.1 from the answering defendant No.1 School as intimated through email dated 12.10.2016 and thereafter cleared all dues upon school leaving on 14.10.2016, without any allegation at that time. Hence at this juncture any alleged claim of plaintiffs is untenable.
24.
That the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the titled suit against the
answering defendants. Hence no cause of action survived and as such the plaint of titled suit is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Even otherwise no civil suit against administrative internal decisions of a school is tenable.
25.
That this is the matter of an internal administrative decision of the
answering defendant No.1 School under its own policies, which cannot be agitated before this Honorable Court, as such there arises no question of jurisdiction of this Honorable Court.
Under the facts and circumstances mentioned above, It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that the titled suit may kindly be dismissed forthwith as not maintainable being barred by law as well as having no cause of action for filing the instant suit.
The plaintiff be burdened with special costs under section 35-A CPC in the supreme interest of justice.
___________
____________
__________
(For LAS)
(For Board of Directors)
(Ms. Kathy Khan)
ANSWERING DEFENDANTS THROUGH
SHAHID IKRAM SIDDIQUI Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan 9-G, Mushtaq Ahmad Gurmani Road, Gulberg-II, Lahore.
RAO ATHAR AKHLAQ Advocate High Court
MUHAMMAD FAIZAN SALEEM Advocate
Verification Verified on oath at Lahore on this of paras No.1 to
day of
2017 that the contents
are correct and true to the best of our knowledge and belief
and that of the remaining paras No.
to
along with the preliminary objections
are true to the best of our information received and believed by us to be correct.
___________
____________
__________
(For LAS)
(For Board of Directors)
(Ms. Kathy Khan)
ANSWERING DEFENDANTS (M.Faizan)
In re : MASHAAL QURESHI ETC
VS.
LAHORE AMERICAN SCHOOL ETC
(SUIT FOR DAMAGES AMOUNTING TO RS.100 MILLION)
WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS
RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS,
1)
That the above titled suit is not maintainable in its present form as well as
not presented in accordance with law, hence the same is liable to be dismissed with costs.
2)
That the plaintiffs have got no cause of action to file the titled suit against
the answering defendants and as such the plaint of titled suit is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.
3)
That the plaintiffs have not come to this Hon'ble court with clean hands as
they are guilty of concealment and suppression of true facts, hence not entitled to any relief from this hon’ble court as prayed for.
4)
That the suit has been based upon facts misconceived in Law and facts, as
well as the plaintiffs have concealed the true and material facts of the case from
this hon’ble court, hence the titled suit is liable to be dismissed being false, frivolous and vexatious .
5)
That the plaintiff No.1 is a minor and is allegedly being represented
through plaintiff No.2, however, he has never been appointed as Guardian At Litem, as required under the law for the initiation of instant suit, hence the suit being improperly filed, is liable to be dismissed.
6)
That the titled suit is bad for mis-joinder of the parties, hence the same is
liable to be dismissed. Suit against Board of Directors of answering defendant No.1 is not legally tenable as the Board of Directors acts as a Policy making authority and does not intervene in administrative decisions like the matter of Scholarship, therefore, they have wrongly been indulged in this matter
7)
That the suit is barred by the provisions of Order VI Rule 15 of CPC as it is
apparent from the plaint itself that it has not been duly verified or presented to the court in accordance with the requirements of Law. Under the law, the plaint should have been verified with provision of necessary specifications as well as it should have been duly attested by an Oath Commissioner. However bare perusal of plaint reveals that the plaint has not been duly verified, As a consequence, there is no legal or valid plaint before the court, therefore the suit under reply is liable to be dismissed on this score alone.
ON MERITS 1.
That the contents with regard to the names and addresses of the parties
contain no factual controversy required to be specifically replied.
2.
That in reply to this para, it is humbly submitted that though the plaintiff
No.1 is a minor and filed the instant suit without any specification of being represented by whom. Even there is no appointment of Guardian At Litem either on record or even specified in the gist of the plaint. Hence the suit has unauthorizedly been filed. As far as the specification of admission of plaintiff No.1 in the answering defendant No.1 school and her excellence is concerned, it may respectfully be submitted here that the instant whole matter arose from non awarding of scholarship to the plaintiff No.1. In this regard, it is relevant to mention here that only very good academic record is not the criteria for awarding scholarship by the answering defendant No.1, which, as a matter of fact, is the only issue in the instant matter and all the remaining assertions have been manipulated by the plaintiffs to count the aforesaid issue.
3.
That in reply to para No.3 of the plaint, it is humbly submitted that the
answering defendant No.1 is one of the best educational institutions providing educational services of International standards in Pakistan since last many decades and the answering defendant No.1 is the leading educational institute in Pakistan.
4.
That the contents of this para 4 requires strict proof from the plaintiffs with
regard to academic record of plaintiff No.1 prior to her joining the answering defendant No.1 School.
5.
That the contents of para 5 of the plaint, though not admitted at its
entirety, have no nexus or made basis of the allegations and claim made in the instant suit.
6.
That the contents of this para 6 are not admitted and even have no nexus
or concern with the allegations as contained in the plaint or claim made therein.
7 to 10.
That in reply to the contents of these paras, it may respectfully be
submitted here that answering defendant No.1 announced new Scholarship Program for the year 2016-2017. The criteria for award of Scholarship was duly provided, which was mainly revolving upon two points i.e. (i) merit and (ii) need. This year there were only two applicants i.e. the plaintiff No.1 and one other student. After seeking applications along with requisite documents, both the students were interviewed by the Scholarship Committee. Considering the record and interviews, the Scholarship Committee found the other student more eligible for the award of scholarship. Obviously the primary consideration for award of scholarship was the above referred two points and mainly the point of “Need”. Said decision of Scholarship Committee was accordingly conveyed to both students through letters dated 17.08.2016. The Scholarship Committee found the other student more deserving. For that very reason, in the letter dated 17.08.2016, it was stated that Ms. Mashaal is welcome to apply again next year. Upon receipt of this letter dated 17.08.2016, the plaintiff No.3 addressed an Email dated 18.08.2016 asking for an appeal option but when she was responded the same day that no appeal is provided for Scholarship Committee decision, in her Email dated 19.08.2016, the plaintiff No.3 after making suggestions, also stated that those will help Mashaal i.e. plaintiff No.1 to prepare for next year. There was no such demand of provision of grounds and criteria for rejection of Mashaal’s application in Email dated
19.08.2017 of plaintiff No.3, as alleged in para 10 of plaint under reply. In Email of August 22, the Superintendent of answering defendant No.1 also provided the policy to the plaintiffs. On the other hand the plaintiff No.2 also thanked the School administration for considering her daughter for Scholarship in his Email of September 09, 2016. All the aforementioned circumstances clearly depicts that everything was normal and this has not been such an issue which has now been floated in such manner by the plaintiffs, thereby dragging the answering defendant No.1 i.e. the best educational institution into the instant baseless litigation.
11.
That the matter addressed to the Board of Directors i.e. defendant No.3 through
email has no relevance to the matter as the Board of Directors acts does not intervene in administrative decisions, unless the administrative decision is against the School Policy so they have wrongly been indulged in this matter by the plaintiff and suit is bad for msjoinder of parties.
12.
That subsequent allegations as contained in para 12 onwards of the plaint under
reply, are vague and has nothing to do with the actual situation. There was no campaign of maligning the plaintiff No.1 in any manner and for any reason. 13.
That in response to the contents of this para, it may respectfully be submitted
here that even after his return to Pakistan, the plaintiff No.2 also thanked the School administration for considering her daughter for Scholarship in his Email of September 09, 2016.
14 & 15.
That the contents of instant paras 14 & 15 are vehemently denied being
incorrect. The answering defendant No.2 being the Administrative Head of the answering defendant No.1 School, is responsible for all administrative actions for and on behalf of defendant No.1 school and to respond on behalf of the school. The decision of Scholarship Award was made by the Scholarship committee and not by the answering defendant No.2. As stated above, the Board of Directors merely acts for policy making and has no concern with such administrative decisions. It has wrongly been asserted that any campaign was launched against plaintiff No.1. The grant of scholarship to other student was made on merits and this is the sole issue on the basis of which this whole matter has been multiplied. 16.
That the contents of this para are vehemently denied being incorrect. The
incident of Quiz cheating was noted by the worthy Teachers, duly reported and conveyed to the plaintiffs. In response thereto, the father of Mashaal i.e. plaintiff No.2 in his email dated 3rd October 2016 categorically stated as under’
“I will speak to Mashaal and rest assure that this will not happen again.-----------------Since this is the first time she did so this retake would serve her as a warning. We will also speak to her and will make sure this does not happen again at all.” This clearly depicts that the plaintiffs were well aware of the actual situation of said matter. Therefore, it is a baseless allegation on the part of the plaintiffs that it was meant to defame and malign Ms Mashaal or to force her to leave school. It is also relevant to mention here that the plaintiffs No.2 and 3 themselves withdrew the plaintiff No.1 from the answering defendant No.1 School as intimated through email dated 12.10.2016 and thereafter cleared all dues upon school leaving on 14.10.2016, without any allegation at that time. Hence at this juncture any alleged claim of plaintiffs is untenable.
17.
That the contents of this para are denied being incorrect. the fact of the
matter is that during SISA tournament while on ride, the plaintiff No.1 demonstrated disrespect and insubordination towards the Coaches which matter was duly reported by the Teachers and coaches and accordingly the Secondary Principal had to take action of suspension from school, in terms of policies of answering defendant No.1. Said decision was duly conveyed to the plaintiffs vide letter dated October 04, 2016. There was nothing in violation of any disciplinary proceedings and never meant to target the plaintiff No.1.
18.
That the contents as narrated in this para are vehemently denied. There
was absolutely no malice on the part of the answering defendants. The answering defendant No.1 is a prestigious and leading Educational Organization providing the best educational services since last over six decades in Pakistan. The answering defendant No.1 is providing the best quality Education and is known throughout the World for its educational services and for this very reason alongside the Pakistani students a number of foreign students are also being taking education from the defendant No.1 school. There was no such attempt to destroy any student’s career.
However, it may respectfully be submitted here that nobody is allowed to disrupt and commit breach of any discipline at any stage, which the plaintiff No.1 has committed.
19.
That the contents of this para are absolutely false and incorrect and hence
denied vehemently. The titled suit has been filed on the basis of untrue and false assertions and the plaintiffs have concealed the true facts of the case to mislead this hon’ble court. The scholarship was granted by the Committee on merits.
20.
That the contents of this para are denied vehemently being incorrect.
There was absolutely nothing malicious campaign against the plaintiff No.1 in any manner. This whole issue was raised by the plaintiffs when the scholarship was given to another deserving student. It never meant that plaintiff No.1 was refused or declined but the scholarship was given to a more deserving candidate and there was no adverse action against the plaintiff No.1. Mere non-award of
scholarship does not mean that the right of quality education was denied to the plaintiff No.1.
21.
That the contents of para No.21 of the plaint are denied being incorrect
and false. The legal Notice sent on behalf of the plaintiff was duly responded.
22.
Denied vehemently. The plaintiff has been dealt in accordance with law
and policies of the answering defendant No.1. There was absolutely no injustice done to anyone.
23.
Denied being incorrectly stated. Through the instant suit under reply false,
frivolous and baseless allegations have been leveled against the answering defendants to injure the repute and dignity of the answering defendants, for which answering defendants reserve their right to take the legal actions at all available forums. The alleged break up of damages is false and frivolous and without any substantiation. On the other hand, it is also relevant to mention here that the plaintiffs No.2 and 3 themselves withdrew the plaintiff No.1 from the answering defendant No.1 School as intimated through email dated 12.10.2016 and thereafter cleared all dues upon school leaving on 14.10.2016, without any allegation at that time. Hence at this juncture any alleged claim of plaintiffs is untenable.
24.
That the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the titled suit against the
answering defendants. Hence no cause of action survived and as such the plaint of titled suit is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Even otherwise no civil suit against administrative internal decisions of a school is tenable.
25.
That this is the matter of an internal administrative decision of the
answering defendant No.1 School under its own policies, which cannot be agitated before this Honorable Court, as such there arises no question of jurisdiction of this Honorable Court.
Under the facts and circumstances mentioned above, It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that the titled suit may kindly be dismissed forthwith as not maintainable being barred by law as well as having no cause of action for filing the instant suit.
The plaintiff be burdened with special costs under section 35-A CPC in the supreme interest of justice.
___________
____________
__________
(For LAS)
(For Board of Directors)
(Ms. Kathy Khan)
ANSWERING DEFENDANTS THROUGH
SHAHID IKRAM SIDDIQUI Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan 9-G, Mushtaq Ahmad Gurmani Road, Gulberg-II, Lahore.
RAO ATHAR AKHLAQ Advocate High Court
MUHAMMAD FAIZAN SALEEM Advocate
Verification Verified on oath at Lahore on this of paras No.1 to
day of
2017 that the contents
are correct and true to the best of our knowledge and belief
and that of the remaining paras No.
to
along with the preliminary objections
are true to the best of our information received and believed by us to be correct.
___________
____________
__________
(For LAS)
(For Board of Directors)
(Ms. Kathy Khan)
ANSWERING DEFENDANTS (M.Faizan)
Related Documents
In The Court Of Mr. Javed Iqbal, Civil Judge, Lahore
January 2021 1
In The Court Of Senior Civil Judge, Multan.: Versus
January 2021 1
In The Supreme Court Of India Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
January 2021 1
More Documents from "Max Cavalera"