IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE, MULTAN.

Haji Muhammad Khalid S/o Mian Abu Bakar, caste Sheikh, R/o
Shams Abad Colony, Multan.
Appellant
VERSUS
1. Deputy Director, Water and Sewerage (WASA) Multan.
2. Special Magistrate WASA, Multan.
3. Revenue Officer, WASA, Multan.
4. Muhamamd Shafique, accountant WASA, Multan.
5. Syed Sarfraz Hussain Shah, Officer WASA, Multan.
6. Revenue Officer, WASA, Multan, office Shamsabad Colony,
Multan.
Respondents

APPEAL: - U/s 104 read with Order 43 C.P.C.

against the order dated 30.7.2001,
passed by Chaudhry Rashid
Ahmad, Civil Judge, Multan,
whereby the learned Judge granted
the interim Stay order, but with
condition to deposit 1/3rd amount of
disputed bill.

Valuation of appeal: - Rs. 6,000/- as fixed in the suit.

Respectfully Sheweth: -

Briefly the facts of the case giving rise to the instant

appeal are that plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for permanent
injunction restraining the respondents from adopting coercive
measures for the recovery of undue bill of Rs. 210,336/- and
Rs. 1,881/- without first ascertaining the same as due and suit
for rendition of accounts.

2. That it was asserted in the plaint that plaintiff in the year

1996 started business of Tanning raw leather and applied
to WASA for Sewerage connection, which was given and
WASA started charging six monthly bills of Rs. 1500/- at
the rate of Rs. 250/- per month. Plaintiff had been
regularly paying the bills since 1996 to 1998 as and when
the bill from WASA was received by him.

3. That thereafter in the year 1999, the WASA

officials/respondents persuaded the appellant not to pay
further bill in WASA account, but instead, some amount
less than the due bill be paid to them as illegal
gratification for all the times to come. On plaintiff’s
refusal, they got annoyed and firstly they did not issue
any bill inspite of demand. But ultimately on 15.6.2001,
the respondent out of malafide and ill will issued a bill
amounting to Rs. 210,336/- for sewerage from January
1996 to June 2001 and another bill of Rs. 1,881/- for
water connection for the same period while the plaintiff
had no water connection in his premises. WASA sent the
case to the Magistrate for recovery as arrears of Land
Revenue.

4. That the plaintiff requested the respondents many a time

and showed them the receipts of payment of bills from
January 1996 to December 1998, to issue him the correct
bill for the remaining two years, which comes to Rs.
6,000/-, but to no affect.

5. That along-with the above suit, the plaintiff/appellant

filed an application under order 39, rules 1 & 2 C.P.C.
seeking that respondents be restrained from adopting
coercive measures for the recovery of the undue disputed
bills.
6. That the learned Civil Judge ceased of the matter, after
notice to the respondents, vide order dated 30.7.2001
granted the interim stay order, but with condition that the
order shall only be effective if plaintiff deposits 1/3rd
amount of disputed bills within one week of the order.

7. That the impugned order to the extent of condition of

depositing 1/3rd amount is illegal, the same having been
passed without application of mind and without perusal
of record, hence without jurisdiction. Plaintiff had
produced receipts showing payments of bills from 1996
to 1998. These bills were issued by the respondents six
monthly demanding Rs. 1500/- for 6 months at the rate of
Rs. 250/- per month and as such plaintiff had good prima
facie case. No written statement or written reply nor any
counter affidavit was filed showing justification of such
heavy amount of disputed bill for two years only. Thus
the impugned order was passed without considering the
merits of the case making the order unduly harsh and
unworkable.

8. That the order was not announced in presence of the

appellant. The appellant on the next day was given
understadnign by Mumtaz Husain Shah, clerk of the
counsel that stay order was issued. The appellant for the
very first time came to know of the condition on
6.9.2001, when the learned Judge inquired from the
petitioner whether he has deposited 1/3rd amount or not.

9. That after deducting the period of summer vacations, this

appeal is within time, even otherwise, the gross illegality
in passing the impugned order cannot prevent the court
from passing proper order. It had been repeatedly held
that rules of C.P.C. are not framed to place any
insurmountable obstacles before court, but are framed to
advance ends of justice. These rules are stretched to
provide proper relief to the parties. It would otherwise
 amount to give premium to the dishonest action of the
respondents.

Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that this

appeal be accepted and impugned order be
amended to the extent of deleting the condition of
depositing 1/3rd amount of the disputed bill. An
unconditional stay order be passed restraining the
respondents from adopting coercive measures for
the recovery of impugned bill, which is not due.
Plaintiff is all the time prepared to deposit due
amount of Rs. 6,000/- for the year 1999 and 2000
provided WASA issues the bill.

It is further prayed that interim relief be

granted by suspending the condition in the
impugned order.
APPELLANT
Dated: 10.9.2001

Through: -
Zafar Iqbal Khan,
Advocate High Court,
124-District Courts, Multan.
 IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE, MULTAN.

Haji Muhammad Khalid Vs. Deputy Director, WASA etc.

APPEAL

AFFIDAVIT of: -
Haji Muhammad Khalid S/o Mian Abu Bakar, caste
Sheikh, R/o Shams Abad Colony, Multan.

I, the above named deponent do hereby

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

DEPONENT