Reply To The Plaint (Civil Court Time Extension)

BEFORE THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE PESHAWAR.
M/S TECHNICON ENGINEERS & EPC CONTRACTOR GROUP

and others Applicants
V/S
The Provincial Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

and others. Respondents
WRITTEN REPLY ON BEHALF

OF RESPONDENTS
RESPECTED SHEWETH.
Preliminary Objection.
1. That the Petitioners has got no cause of action to file the present suit against the
respondents.
2. That the Petitioners has not served the Notice to the Government U/S 80 C.P.C,
which is mandatory.
3. That this Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain this suit.
4. That the suit of the Petitioners is baseless frivolous and based on malafide
intention.
5. That the suit of the Petitioners is bed for misjoinder and non-joinder of the
necessary parties.
6. That the Petitioners may be stopped to file the present suit.
7. That the Petitioners wants to put pressure on the defendant.
8. That the Petitioners has not come to the court with clean hands.
1|Page
9. That material facts have been concealed by the Petitioners.
10. That the suit of the Petitioners is time barred.
11. That the Petitioners failed to fulfill the terms and conditions mentioned in the
contract agreement as per contract agreement as he had never given intent for
arbitration to the Engineer, hence, not liable for filing the present suit against the
respondents.
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 28 OF THE ARBITRATION ACT 1940 FOR
ENLARGMENT OF TIME FOR MAKING THE AWARD
1 That the Para No. (1) is subject to proof.
2.1 That the Para No. (2.1) is subject to proof.
2.3 That the Para No. (2.3) is correct.
2.4 That the Para No. (2.4) is incorrect and denied.
During Arbitration Proceedings dated 15-03-2021, (Order No.2) the
claims were not ready and proceedings postponed to 05/04/2021. No
proceeding could take place until 13/10/2021.
The learned Arbitrator submitted the Claims of the Claimant (1-5
Volumes) to respondent No.1 (Secretary to Government of Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa Irrigation Department) vide his letter No 815/MLA/481
dated 07-10-2021 (Copy Annexed as I). The same was forwarded to
Respondent No 2&3 vide letter No. SO/(Lit)/Irr:/3-11/2021 dated 14-10-
2021 (Copy Annexed as II) meaning that the claims of the Claimant were
2|Page
provided to the respondents after lapse of 08 Months from the date of
appointment of the learned Arbitrator. Therefore the stance that
respondents submitted replies to the claims after 12 months is not based
on facts.
2.5 That the Para No (2.5) is subject to proof. Furthermore the detail reflected
herein is quit silent about the letter No.815/MLA/481 dated 7-10-2021,
which determine the exact date of submission to respondent No.1
contrary to a general statement reflected against the order No.3, Para
No.4. (Copy annexed as III).
2.6 That the Para No (2.6) is incorrect and denied. As elaborated in 2.4
above, the claimant submitted his claim after lapse of 08 Months since
commencement of proceedings by the Arbitrator. It is pertinent to mention
that the claimant was not urged/stressed by the Arbitrator for early
submission of his claim.
2.7 That the Para No. (2.7) is subject to proof/irrelevant.
2.8 That the Para No. (2.8) is subject to proof/irrelevant.
3|Page
2.14 That the Para No. (2.14) is subject to proof. The Arbitration Proceeding
was to be concluded within the allocated time period of 04 Months (From
22-02-2023 to 22-06-2023). However, the same could not be finalized
even up till 15-09-2023. (The last date of Proceeding)
2.15 That the Para No. (2.15) is correct as the Applicant/Arbitrator has
become functus officio and proceedings in the matter were void ab initio,
without jurisdiction and barred by Law.
2.16 That the Para No.(2.16) need clarification. The Arbitration could not be
completed within the stipulated time due to conduct of claimant and
Arbitrator.
2.21 That the Para No. (2.21) is correct. However, since the conduct of
Arbitrator/Applicant render him biased, hence not liable for further
extension. Furthermore the Arbitrator does not have any experience of
Irrigation/Hydraulic works and would not be able for making fair award.
2.22 That the submission under Para No. (2.22) may not be accepted on
grounds as per Para 2.21 above.
4
4|Page
PRAYER
In light of above it is respectfully prayed that the instant application may
kindly be dismissed and ……..
From Respondents (1 to 3)
THROUGH.
Jehanzeb Khan Muhammadzai

Advocate Supreme Court.
Affidavit
Verified that the Contents of written reply /

statement are correct to the best knowledge /
record and nothing has been concealed to this
Honorable Court.
5|Page

Reply To The Plaint (Civil Court Time Extension)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reply To The Plaint (Civil Court Time Extension)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reply To The Plaint (Civil Court Time Extension)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BEFORE THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE PESHAWAR.

M/S TECHNICON ENGINEERS & EPC CONTRACTOR GROUP

The Provincial Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

WRITTEN REPLY ON BEHALF

3. That this Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain this suit.

6. That the Petitioners may be stopped to file the present suit.

7. That the Petitioners wants to put pressure on the defendant.

10. That the suit of the Petitioners is time barred.

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 28 OF THE ARBITRATION ACT 1940 FOR

ENLARGMENT OF TIME FOR MAKING THE AWARD

1 That the Para No. (1) is subject to proof.

2.1 That the Para No. (2.1) is subject to proof.

2.2 That the Para No. (2.1) is subject to proof.

2.3 That the Para No. (2.3) is correct.

2.4 That the Para No. (2.4) is incorrect and denied.

During Arbitration Proceedings dated 15-03-2021, (Order No.2) the

claims were not ready and proceedings postponed to 05/04/2021. No

proceeding could take place until 13/10/2021.

The learned Arbitrator submitted the Claims of the Claimant (1-5

Volumes) to respondent No.1 (Secretary to Government of Khyber

Pakhtunkhwa Irrigation Department) vide his letter No 815/MLA/481

dated 07-10-2021 (Copy Annexed as I). The same was forwarded to

Respondent No 2&3 vide letter No. SO/(Lit)/Irr:/3-11/2021 dated 14-10-

appointment of the learned Arbitrator. Therefore the stance that

respondents submitted replies to the claims after 12 months is not based

herein is quit silent about the letter No.815/MLA/481 dated 7-10-2021,

which determine the exact date of submission to respondent No.1

contrary to a general statement reflected against the order No.3, Para

No.4. (Copy annexed as III).

commencement of proceedings by the Arbitrator. It is pertinent to mention

submission of his claim.

2.7 That the Para No. (2.7) is subject to proof/irrelevant.

2.8 That the Para No. (2.8) is subject to proof/irrelevant.

2.9 That the Para No. (2.8) is correct.

2.10 That the Para No. (2.10) is subject to proof.

2.11 That the Para No. (2.11) is subject to proof.

2.12 That the Para No. (2.12) is subject to proof.

2.13 That the Para No. (2.13) is correct.

was to be concluded within the allocated time period of 04 Months (From

22-02-2023 to 22-06-2023). However, the same could not be finalized

even up till 15-09-2023. (The last date of Proceeding)

without jurisdiction and barred by Law.

completed within the stipulated time due to conduct of claimant and

2.17 That the Para No. (2.17) is correct.

2.18 That the Para No. (2.18) is correct.

2.19 That the Para No. (2.19) is correct.

2.20 That the Para No. (2.20) is correct.

Arbitrator/Applicant render him biased, hence not liable for further

extension. Furthermore the Arbitrator does not have any experience of

grounds as per Para 2.21 above.

In light of above it is respectfully prayed that the instant application may

kindly be dismissed and ……..

Jehanzeb Khan Muhammadzai

Verified that the Contents of written reply /

You might also like