KARACHI: Pilots’ body files affidavit in plea against DAG
By Our Reporter
KARACHI, Oct 5: President of the Pakistan Airlines Pilots Association has filed a counter affidavit in the petition filed by Airleague against the application filed by the Deputy Attorney General seeking stay of suit filed by Palpa before the original side of the Sindh High Court.
Barrister Dr Muhammad Farogh Naseem filed the affidavit on behalf of Palpa.
Through the Chief Executive’s Order No 6 of 2001, all unions in the PIA stand suspended. This was challenged by Airleague in a constitutional petition before a division bench in which adjournments had been granted to the then attorney general.
Thereafter, Palpa challenged the CE’s order along with administrative order 17/2001, issued by the PIA, in a suit before a single SHC judge.
During the course of the argument, Aziz A. Munshi and Syed Zaki Muhammad had raised preliminary objections with regard to the maintainability of the suit by Palpa. They had also argued for staying the suit in view of the pendency of Airleague’s petition. The matter was adjourned only for this purpose on Sept 28, 2001.
It is stated in the counter affidavit of Palpa that an application was made by the DAG before a division bench in the petition concerning Airleague, wherein it was incorrectly stated that the single judge, after hearing the objections, had fixed the matter for detailed hearing, bypassing the fact that the suit disputing the CE’s order of 2001 was not maintainable.
In the counter affidavit, it has been stated that this was totally incorrect since the single judge had not decided the issue and as such the division bench was misled in passing an interim order of Sept 27, to stay further proceedings in the suit.
It has also been maintained that for this incorrect statment, whosoever is responsible be punished for perjury and contempt of court.
Palpa has also contended that this division bench, in the constitutional petition, exercises original jurisdiction as did the single judge, while taking cognizance of the suit.
As such the division bench could not have passed an order staying proceedings in the suit when in both the cases the court exercised coordinate jurisdiction.
It is also contended by Palpa that the only principle under which a subsequent case can be stayed is Section 10 of the CPC. In any event, even if an order under Section 10 is passed, it does not preclude the court from passing interlocutory orders.
