KARACHI, Dec 21: The Sindh High Court issued on Friday contempt of court notices to three officers of the KESC for Dec 24.
The division bench comprised Justice Mohammed Roshan Essani and Justice Mujeebullah Siddiqui.
The court was hearing a contempt of court application filed by Nauman Baqi, owner of Classic Marble (Pvt) Limited, in which it was maintained that the alleged contemnors, executive engineer Munawwaruddin, chief controller of billing Mr Khattak, and Manzoor Ahmed, zonal manager of industrial miscellaneous zone, failed to comply with an order of the court by which they had been directed to forthwith restore electricity connection.
The petitioner contended that the KESC had issued inflated bills against which when he contacted the authorities concerned, he was threatened and a raid was conducted on his factory to implicate him in a false case of power theft.
The bench, taking notice of the violation of the court order, issued contempt of court notices to the alleged contemnors for the next date of hearing.
ACTIVIST: The same division bench of the SHC dismissed the bail application of Ajmal Pahari, an activist of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement, on non-prosecution.
According to the prosecution, accused Ajmal Pahari, involved in a case of bomb blast, which occurred on October 27, 1998 near Data corner in the limits of Artillery Maidan police in Karachi, resulted in the destruction of a police checkpost and injuries to at least 15 persons.
VESSEL: Another division bench, consisting of Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali and Justice Musheer Alam, dismissed in limini a High Court appeal filed by M/S Jaffer Brothers against the order of a single-judge bench which had dismissed the application seeking arrest of a foreign vessel, MV Eurobulker.
The appellant’s counsel submitted that his client, M/S Jaffer Brothers, had imported a consignment of potassic fertilizer for sowing potato crops in Pakistan. The consignment did not reach Karachi port within the given period which resulted in the loss of 694,400 US dollars to the appellant.
The appellant’s filed a suit for damages in the SHC and later moved an application, under rule 731 of Sindh Chief Court Rules (OS), for arrest of the respondent’s vessel. On Nov 16, Justice Shabbir Ahmed ordered that the vessel be arrested but be released on furnishing security for the suit amount.
INHERITANCE MATTER: A suit pertaining to alleged forgery of documents in an inheritance matter came up for exparte order before Justice Shabbir Ahmed of the Sindh High Court.
Represented by counsel Syed Sami Ahmed, Mrs Zainab Fatima alias Najmussehar had filed the suit against her real aunt Rafia Begum and nephew S. Abbas Hasan Bilgirami.
According to facts of the case, deceased father of the plaintiff, Hasan Bilgirami, had gifted a bungalow in PECHS whereas her deceased mother gifted her very costly immovable property in the commercial area of Jodia Bazaar.
When the plaintiff claimed her due share in the property she was taken aback when the defendant No 1, who is son of her real brother, confronted her with two documents, ie, a deed of relinquishment and a will alleging that her share in the said property had already been transferred to his father by a person no less than the plaintiff herself.
The plaintiff asked for photo copies of the two documents. She found out that her incomplete name in those documents (Najmussehar) had been forged because on such dates she was in the USA.
It was claim of the plaintiff that she tried her level best to settle the matter amicably in the larger interest of the family, but she failed.
The defendant’s counsel, Naqi Mirza, appeared in the court on Oct 1, and gave an undertaking that he would file power of attorney. But he did not do so.
On Dec 3, when the matter came up before Justice Zahid Kurban Alavi, an order to proceed exparte was passed and the order of restraint passed earlier in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendants from transferring the said property in any manner was confirmed.
When the matter came up on Friday, counsel for the defendants Naqi Mirza appeared in the court and moved an application for recalling the order of Dec 3.
The counsel for the plaintiff, Syed Sami Ahmed, argued that the earlier order, which was being sought to be recalled, could be recalled if a good cause was shown by the other side.
He further submitted that in view of the deliberate absence of the counsel for the defendants it would not be possible as to show a good cause to the satisfaction of the court.
However, his application for recalling the order of Dec 3 was entertained and the matter was adjourned to a date in office.