Cross Objection Fra 177 Redacted

IN THE COURT OF [COURT REDACTED] SOUTH AT KARACHI.

FRA NO.177 OF 2012

[REDACTED] …………… Appellant / Intervenor

Versus

[REDACTED] & others …………….. Respondents

OBJECTIONS TO FIRST RENT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 21 OF SINDH RENTED PREMISES ORDINANCE 1979 ON BAHALF OF RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4.

It is respectfully submitted that the instant appeal is liable to be dismissed on the following preliminary legal objections.

a.That the intervenor has approached this Hon’ble Court with malafide and in order to frustrate the very purpose of law therefore, the above appeal is liable to be dismissed.

b.That the above appeal is not maintainable in its present form as the appellant / intervenor has challenged two different orders of two different courts of two different dates through one appeal.

c. That the above appeal is based on concealment of facts therefore, the same may be dismissed with special cost.

d.That the intervenor has no cause of action to maintain this instant appeal or the application under section 12(2) of CPC.

e.That the above appeal is the result of malafide and ill-will of the intervenor and therefore, the same may be dismissed.

Without prejudice to the above preliminary objections the parawise reply to the instant appeal are as follows: -

That the contents of unnumbered para of the above appeal are misconceived and the so-called intervenor is put to strict proof thereof. It is submitted that the intervenor by filling this frivolous appeal wants to mislead this Hon’ble Court as from the contents of the para under reply it is clear that the said appeal is not maintainable on account of error apparent on the face of record. The intervenor has blatantly violated the provision of appeal as provided under Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 as he has challenged two different orders of two different dates of two different courts through the above appeal which is absolutely not permissible under the eye of law. It is submitted that on this ground the instant appeal is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost.

2.That the contents of para-1 of the appeal are vehemently denied and the intervenor named above is