IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,

MULTAN.

I.C.A. No. _________/2002

In
W.P. No. 5080/2002

Kashif Ghafoor Qadri etc. Vs. Chairman PCATP etc.

INDEX
S. No. DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS ANNEXES PAGES
1 Urgent Form
2 Stamp Papers
3 Memo of Appeal.
4 Copy of judgment. A
5 Copy of writ petition. B
6 Copy of Directory-90. C

7 Cop of letter. D
8 Dispensation Application
9 Affidavit
10 Stay application.
11 Affidavit.
12 Power of Attorney

APPELLANTS
Dated: __________

Through: -
Hammad Afzal Bajwa, Sheikh Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan. 28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20959 C.C. No. 20176
 IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

I.C.A. No. _________/2002

In
W.P. No. 5080/2002

1. Kashif Ghafoor Qadri S/o Abdul Ghafoor Qadri, caste Rajput,

R/o H. No. 15/2, 60 Feet Road, New Multan.
2. Javed Iqbal S/o Haroon Ali, caste Mughal, R/o Javed
Associates, opposite Muhammad Arcade, 2nd Floor Mian
Mansion, Khanewal Road, Multan.
3. Naseer Ahmad Qureshi S/o Saeed Ahmad Qureshi, caste
Qureshi, R/o Nai Abadi Gali Masjid Wali, Old Shujabad
Road, Madina Town, Multan.
4. Abduz Zahid S/o Abdul Khalid, caste Sheikh, R/o 80-Sultan
Abad, Gulgasht Colony, Multan.
5. Muhammad Zahid Akbar S/o Muhammad Akbar Rana, caste
Rana, R/o 90-Timber Market, Multan.
6. Muhammad Tarhir S/o Khushi Muhammad, 259 Mohallah
Syed Wala, Jalalpur Pirwala, District Multan.
7. Muhammad Mujib S/o Muhammad Siddique, R/o H. No.
1275, Ward No. 3, Mohallah Kamangran, Hussain Agahi,
Multan.
8. Malik Muhammad Bakhsh S/o Malik Ghulam Rasool, caste
Jat, R/o 2-Babar Colony, Police Lines, near Babar Building,
Multan.
9. Muhammad Asif Awan S/o Muhammad Ashraf Awan, caste
Awan, R/o H. No. 2401/9, Mohallah Sultani Koocha Islami,
O/s Lohari Gate, Multan.
……APPELLANTS
VERSUS
1. Pakistan Council for Architects & Town Planners, through its
Registrar.
2. Chairman, Pakistan Council for Architects & Town Planners,
Suit No. 111, First Floor, RSM Square E-1 Shaheed-e-Millat
Road, Karachi.
3. Tehsil city Municipal Administration, Multan, through City
Nazim.
4. Tehsil Sadar Municipal Administration, Multan, through
Tehsile Nazim.
…RESPONDENTS

APPEAL U/s 3 of Law Reforms

(Amendment) Act, 1972, against the
judgment dated 17.10.02, passed by
the Hon’ble Single Judge in
Chamber of this Hon’ble Court at
Multan, resulting the dismissal of
writ petition of the
appellants/petitioners.

Claim in Appeal: -
To set aside the impugned judgment
and to accept the writ petition.

Court Fee: -

As required under the law is affixed.

Respectfully Sheweth: -

1. That the names and addresses of the parties have correctly been
given for the purpose of their summons and citations.
2. That the ARCHITECTS AND TOWN PLANNERS were
working haphazardly and to regulate the architectural and town
planning work, a law namely Pakistan Council of Architects &
Town Planner Ordinance 1983 was promulgated. This ordinance
categorized the qualified and non-qualified architects and town
planners; and a safeguard to the rights of both was provided
through this ordinance. The Pakistan Council of Architects and
Town Planners is a statutory body constituted under this
ordinance.

3. That under section 16 (1) (a) of the ordinance, it was incumbent

upon the Council to maintain this separate register in prescribed
manner for the Architects & Town Planners possessing
recognized qualifications and under section 16 (1) (b) to prepare
two separate lists for the persons not possessing the qualifications
as per section 16 (1) (a). The respondents No. 1 & 2 in
compliance of section 8 (a) & 16 (1) (b) registered the applicants
falling under section 16 (1) (b) and published a list first time in
1989. This list includes the Diploma Holders/Draftsmen of
different periods and Naqsha Nawis( ) as well.

4. That the appellants are Draftsmen/Diploma Holders and working

as non-qualified Architects/Town Planners. The appellants were
enlisted/categorized by the respondent No. 3 and a fee as per
schedule was paid to respondent No. 3 by the appellants and there
was smooth working. Meanwhile the respondent No. 1 addressed
a letter to respondent No. 3 in which, it was pointed out that the
professionals, not enlisted with respondents No. 1 & 2 shall not
be allowed to work. But the respondent No. 3 continued to
receive the plans for approval. Now in response of this letter the
respondent No. 3 framed their bye-laws.

5. That the appellants, without going deep into the controversy with
respondents, submitted applications to the respondent No. 1 for
enlistment as required under section 8 (a), 16 (1) (b) and 16 (2) as
well. These applications were for the issuance of application form
for registration and appellants desired to pay the prescribed fee.
 These applications were duly received by the respondent No. 1,
but in response, the respondent No. 1 refused to issue application
form with reference to some notification. The respondent No. 1,
even not bothered to send a copy of notification referred in the
letters. It is pertinent to point out that no such notification is in
existence upto the knowledge of the appellants.

6. That a great miscarriage of justice was caused by the letters and

acts of respondents, so the grievance was agitated through the
constitutional petition which was dismissed by the Hon’ble
Single Judge in the Chamber, vide judgment dated 17.10.02. The
certified copy of same with copy of petition is Annex “A & B”.

7. That the judgment dated 17.10.02 is impugned inter-alia on the

following: -

GROUNDS

i) That the impugned judgment is against the principles of

natural justice and law of equity.

ii) That the impugned judgment is against the law and facts
of the case.

iii) That the acts of respondents and the impugned judgment

are against the essence and objects enumerated in Article
2-A of the constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

iv) That the reply of respondents is illegal, unlawful,

arbitrary, capricious, void ab-initio and un-warranted
under the law. On the other hand, it is the clear-cut
violation of statutory provisions and in conflict with the
ordinance (ibid). The intention of the legislation was
quite clear, when section 8 (a) & 16 were inducted. In
fact this assertion was a safeguard for the professionals
having lesser qualification than qualified architects and
town planners.
v) That the comments submitted in the constitutional
petition were against the facts. The respondents No. 1 &
2 enlisted the non-qualified professionals
(draftsmen/diploma-holders) after the alleged cut-date
i.e. 31.12.89 in the shape of Directory-90 while another
directory for the year 1992 was published by respondents
No. 1 & 2 is not available for the time being. Photocopy
of Directory-90 is Annex “C”.

vi) That the conduct, acts and steps taken by the respondents
are illegal, unlawful and unwarranted under the law,
because the respondent No. 1 had already issued a letter
stating thereby that the P.C.A.T.P. Ordinance, 1983 does
not debar the petitioners to continue the work as
“DRAFTSMEN”. Copy of letter is Annex “D”.

vii) That the concealment of facts on the part of respondents

No. 1 & 2 depicts their malafide and ulterior motive
towards the petitioners.

viii) That the acts and conduct of the respondents and the
impugned judgment as well are in the collusion with
articles 4, 18 & 25 of the constitution of Islamic
Republic of Pakistan.

ix) That the Hon’ble Single Judge decided the case in haste
and without taking the notice of prayer clause of
constitutional petition.

x) That the appellants are earning bread & butter for their
families and now going to be penniless due to the
conduct and behaviour of respondents. This situation is
seriously attacking to the fundamental rights of the
appellants, which warranted legal action in this regard.

xi) That great miscarriage of justice is caused to the

appellants due to the impugned judgment.
 In view of the above submissions, it is
respectfully prayed that the impugned judgment
may please be set aside and the constitutional
petition may please be accepted.

Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court

deems fit may graciously be awarded in the
interest of justice and equity.
Humble Appellants,

Dated: ________

Through: -
Hamad Afzal Bajwa, Sheikh Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan. 28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20959 C.C. No. 20176

Certificate: -

Certified as per instructions of the client,

this is the first Intra Court appeal on the
subject matter. No such appeal has earlier
been filed before this Hon’ble Court.

Advocate

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,

MULTAN.
 In re: C.M. No. _________/2002
In
I.C.A. No. _________/2002
In
W.P. No. 5080/2002

Kashif Ghafoor Qadri etc. Vs. Chairman PCATP etc.

APPLICATION FOR DISPENSING WITH THE

FILING OF CERTIFIED COPIES OF ANNEXURES.
=========================================

Respectfully Sheweth: -
That certified copies of Annexes “C & D” are not
available. However, uncertified/photo state copies of the
same have been annexed with the petition, which are true
copies of original documents.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble

court may please dispense with the filing of aforesaid copies
of documents.
APPLICANTS,

Dated: __________
Through: -
Hamad Afzal Bajwa, Sheikh Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan. 28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20959 C.C. No. 20176

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,

MULTAN.
 In re: C.M. No. _________/2002
In
I.C.A. No. _________/2002
In
W.P. No. 5080/2002

Kashif Ghafoor Qadri etc. Vs. Chairman PCATP etc.

APPLICATION U/S 5 OF LIMITATION ACT, 1908.

AFFIDAVIT of: -
Kashif Ghafoor Qadri S/o Abdul Ghafoor Qadri, caste
Rajput, R/o Street No. 10, Main Bazar, Shah Faisal
Colony, Ghaus Pura, Multan.

I, the above named deponent do hereby

solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of
the above-mentioned application 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
November 2002 that the contents of this affidavit
are true & correct to the best of my knowledge
and belief.
DEPONENT

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,

MULTAN.
 In re: C.M. No. _________/2002
In
I.C.A. No. _________/2002
In
W.P. No. 5080/2002

Kashif Ghafoor Qadri etc. Vs. Chairman PCATP etc.

APPLICATION U/S 151 C.P.C. FOR INTERIM RELIEF.

Sheweth as under: -
1. That the contents of main I.C.A. may be treated as the integral
part and parcel of this application.

2. That the category of applicants is drawing the site plans, maps

and Naqshas ( ) for a long time and their skill is
going to equalize their lesser qualifications.

3. That the applicants have also been working in the same field
since last 5/6 years successfully and there is no complaint at
all in this respect.

4. That the respondents No. 3 & 4 were always according

sanction and approval of site plans, maps and Naqshas ( )
submitted by the applicants, but stopped the same, under the
instructions/directions of respondents No. 1 & 2.

5. That the applicants tried to get themselves enlisted under the

law, but respondents No. 1 & 2 have refused to issue the
application forms after receiving the prescribed fee.

6. That the applicants are earning bread and butter for their
families from this job and since last two months, the
 applicants have become penniless due to the act and conduct
of respondents.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the

respondents No. 3 & 4 may please be directed to
entertain and approve the site plans, maps and Naqshas
( ) submitted by the applicants, till the final
applicants decision of the main petition.

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems

fit, may also be granted to the applicants.
APPLICANTS,

Dated: __________

Through: -
Hamad Afzal Bajwa, Sheikh Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan. 28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20959 C.C. No. 20176

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,

MULTAN.
 I.C.A. No. _________/2002
In
W.P. No. 5080/2002

Kashif Ghafoor Qadri etc. Vs. Chairman PCATP etc.

AFFIDAVIT of: -
Kashif Ghafoor Qadri S/o Abdul Ghafoor Qadri, caste
Rajput, R/o Street No. 10, Main Bazar, Shah Faisal
Colony, Ghaus Pura, Multan.

I, the above named deponent do hereby

solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of
the above-titled I.C.A. 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 18th day of
November, 2002 that the contents of this affidavit
are true & correct to the best of my knowledge
and belief.

DEPONENT
 Sr. Name Father’s name Caste Educational Technical Course Session Board Experience
No. qualification qualification duration
1 Kashif Ghafoor Abdul Ghafoor Qadri Rajput Matric Civil 2 years 8-1995 Punjab Boar of 7 years
Qadri Draftsman Technical Education,
Lahore
2 Javed Iqbal Haroon Ali Matric Civil 2 years 2-1991 Punjab Boar of 11 years
Draftsman Technical Education,
Lahore
3 Muhammad Akhtar Muhammad Hussain Lodhi Matric Civil 2 years 7-1991 Directorate of 11 years
Hussain Lodhi Lodhi Draftsman Manpower & Training
Trade Testing Board,
Punjab
4 Naseer Ahmad Saeed Ahmad Qureshi Qureshi Matric Civil 2 years 0-1989 Punjab Boar of 13 years
Qureshi Draftsman Technical Education,
Lahore
5 Abduz Zahid Abdul Khalid Sheikh Matric Civil 2 years 10-1996 Directorate of 6 years
Draftsman Manpower & Training
Trade Testing Board,
Punjab
6 Muhammad Zahid Muhammad Akbar Rana Matric Civil 2 years 8-1995 Punjab Boar of 7 years
Akbar Rana Draftsman Technical Education,
Lahore
7 Muhammad Tahir Khushi Muhammad F.A. Civil 2 years 3-1999 Directorate of 3 years
Draftsman Manpower & Training
Trade Testing Board,
Punjab
8 Muhammad Mujib Muhammad Siddique Matric Civil 1 year 4-1994 Directorate of 8 years
Draftsman Manpower & Training
Trade Testing Board,
Punjab
9 Malik Muhammad Malik Ghulam Rasool Jat Matric Civil 2 years 0-1971 Technical Training 32 years
Bakhsh Draftsman Centre,
Karachi,/Karachi Poly
Technical Institute,
Karachi.
10 Muhammad Asif Muhammad Ashraf Awan Matric Civil 3 years 12-1996 Punjab Boar of 6 years
Awan Awan Engineering Technical Education,
Lahore
 IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

R.A. No. _________/2002

In
W.P. No. _________/2002

M. Akhtar Hussain Lodhi S/o Muhammad Hussain Lodhi, caste

Lodhi, R/o Piran Sahib Colony No. 2, M.D.A. Road, near Pul
Bararan, Multan.
……APPLICANT
VERSUS
1. Pakistan Council for Architects & Town Planners, through its
Registrar.
2. Chairman, Pakistan Council for Architects & Town Planners, Suit
No. 111, First Floor, RSM Square E-1 Shaheed-e-Millat Road,
Karachi.
3. Tehsil city Municipal Administration, Multan, through City
Nazim.
4. Tehsil Sadar Municipal Administration, Multan, through Tehsile
Nazim.
…RESPONDENTS

Review application U/s 114 C.P.C.

against the judgment dated 17.10.02
passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge,
Lahore High Court, Bench at Multan,
by which the constitutional petition of
the applicant was dismissed.
Respectfully Sheweth: -

1. That the names and addresses of the parties have correctly been
given for the purpose of their summons and citations.

2. That the ARCHITECTS AND TOWN PLANNERS were

working haphazardly and to regulate the architectural and town
planning work, a law namely Pakistan Council of Architects &
Town Planner Ordinance 1983 was promulgated. This ordinance
categorized the qualified and non-qualified architects and town
planners; and a safeguard to the rights of both was provided
through this ordinance. The Pakistan Council of Architects and
Town Planners is a statutory body constituted under this
ordinance.

3. That under section 16 (1) (a) of the ordinance, it was incumbent

upon the Council to maintain this separate register in prescribed
manner for the Architects & Town Planners possessing
recognized qualifications and under section 16 (1) (b) to prepare
two separate lists for the persons not possessing the qualifications
as per section 16 (1) (a). The respondents No. 1 & 2 in
compliance of section 8 (a) & 16 (1) (b) registered the applicants
falling under section 16 (1) (b) and published a list first time in
1989. This list includes the Diploma Holders/Draftsmen of
different periods and Naqsha Nawis( ) as well.

4. That the applicant is Draftsmen/Diploma Holder and working as

non-qualified Architect/Town Planner. The applicant was
enlisted/categorized by the respondent No. 3 and a fee as per
schedule was paid to respondent No. 3 by the applicant and there
was smooth working. Meanwhile the respondent No. 1 addressed
a letter to respondent No. 3 in which, it was pointed out that the
professionals, not enlisted with respondents No. 1 & 2 shall not
be allowed to work. But the respondent No. 3 continued to
receive the plans for approval. Now in response of this letter the
respondent No. 3 framed their bye-laws.

5. That the applicant, without going deep into the controversy with
respondents, submitted application to the respondent
 No. 1 for enlistment as required under section 8 (a), 16 (1) (b)
and 16 (2) as well. These applications were for the issuance of
application form for registration and appellants desired to pay the
prescribed fee. This application was duly received by the
respondent No. 1, but in response, the respondent No. 1 refused
to issue application form with reference to some notification. The
respondent No. 1, even not bothered to send a copy of
notification referred in the letters.

6. That a great miscarriage of justice was caused by the letters and

acts of respondents, so the grievance was agitated through the
constitutional petition which was dismissed by the Hon’ble
Single Judge in the Chamber, vide judgment dated 17.10.02. The
certified copy of same with copy of petition is Annex “A & B”.

7. That the applicant seeks review of the judgment inter-alia on the

following: -

GROUNDS

i) That the reply and comments of respondents are illegal,

unlawful, arbitrary, capricious, void ab-initio and un-
warranted under the law. On the other hand, it is the
clear-cut violation of statutory provisions and in
conflict with the ordinance (ibid). The intention of the
legislation was quite clear, when section 8 (a) & 16
were inducted. In fact this assertion was a safeguard for
the professionals having lesser qualification than
qualified architects and town planners.

ii) That the comments submitted in the constitutional

petition were against the facts. The respondents No. 1
& 2 enlisted the non-qualified professionals
(draftsmen/diploma-holders) after the alleged cut-date
i.e. 31.12.89 in the shape of Directory-90 while another
directory for the year 1992 was published by
respondents No. 1 & 2 is not available for the time
being. Photocopy of Directory-90 is Annex “C”.
iii) That the conduct, acts and steps taken by the
respondents are illegal, unlawful and unwarranted
under the law, because the respondent No. 1 had
already issued a letter stating thereby that the P.C.A.T.P.
Ordinance, 1983 does not debar the petitioners to
continue the work as “DRAFTSMEN”. Copy of letter is
Annex “D”.

iv) That the applicant passed one year draftsman course on

24.10.1989 from Technical Training Centre Multan and
joined Akhtar Associates which was working since
1981. On 27th of July, 1991 the applicant successfully
completed two years course of Draftsman (civil) from
the Govt. Vocational Institute (Boys) Bahawalpur. In
this situation, the applicant successfully met with the
conditions described in Section-28 (ibid). Copies of
Educational Certificates with copy of license are
Annexes “E, F & G”.

v) That the respondents No. 3 & 4, when known as

Municipal Corporation, Multan, the Deputy Mayor of
said corporation issued a certificate in respect of
working at competence of the applicant which is Annex
“H”.

vi) That the concealment of facts on the part of respondents

No. 1 & 2 depicts their malafide and ulterior motive
towards the petitioners.

vii) That the acts and conduct of the respondents and the
impugned judgment as well are in the collusion with
articles 4, 18 & 25 of the constitution of Islamic
Republic of Pakistan.

viii) That great miscarriage of justice is caused to the

applicant due to the impugned judgment.
 In view of the above submissions, it is
respectfully prayed that the impugned judgment
may please be viewed and the constitutional
petition may please be accepted.

Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court

deems fit may graciously be awarded in the
interest of justice and equity.

Humble Appellant,

Dated: ________

Through: -
Hamad Afzal Bajwa, Sheikh Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan. 28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20959 C.C. No. 20176

Certificate: -

Certified as per instructions of the

client, this is the first Review
Application on the subject matter. No
such application has earlier been
filed before this Hon’ble Court.

Advocate

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,

MULTAN.
 R.A. No. _________/2002
In
W.P. No. _________/2002

M. Akhtar Hussain Lodhi

Vs.
Chairman PCATP etc.

INDEX
S. No. DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS ANNEXES PAGES
1 Urgent Form
2 Stamp Paper
3 Review application
4 Affidavit
5 Copy of judgment. A
6 Copy of writ petition. B
7 Copy of Directory-90. C

8 Copy of letter. D
9 Copies of certificate and license. E,F,G
10 Copy of certificate H
11 Dispensation Application
12 Affidavit
13 Stay application.
14 Affidavit.
15 Power of Attorney

APPLICANT,
Dated: __________

Through: -
Hamad Afzal Bajwa, Sheikh Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan. 28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20959 C.C. No. 20176
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.
 C.M. No. _________/2002
In
R.A. No. _________/2002
In
W.P. No. _________/2002

M. Akhtar Hussain Lodhi

Vs.
Chairman PCATP etc.

APPLICATION FOR DISPENSING WITH THE

FILING OF CERTIFIED COPIES OF ANNEXURES.
=========================================

Respectfully Sheweth: -
That certified copies of Annexes “C to H” are not available.
However, uncertified/photo state copies of the same have been
annexed with the petition, which are true copies of original
documents.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble

court may please dispense with the filing of aforesaid copies
of documents.
APPLICANTS,

Dated: __________

Through: -
Hamad Afzal Bajwa, Sheikh Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan. 28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20959 C.C. No. 20176

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,

MULTAN.
 R.A. No. _________/2002
In
W.P. No. _________/2002

M. Akhtar Hussain Lodhi

Vs.
Chairman PCATP etc.

REVIEW APPLICATION.

AFFIDAVIT of: -
M. Akhtar Hussain Lodhi S/o Muhammad Hussain
Lodhi, caste Lodhi, R/o Piran Sahib Colony No. 2,
M.D.A. Road, near Pul Bararan, Multan.

I, the above named deponent do hereby

solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the
above-titled review application 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
November 2002 that the contents of this affidavit are
true & correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

DEPONENT

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,

MULTAN.
 C.M. No. _________/2002
In
R.A. No. _________/2002
In
W.P. No. _________/2002

M. Akhtar Hussain Lodhi

Vs.
Chairman PCATP etc.

APPLICATION U/S 151 C.P.C. FOR INTERIM RELIEF.

Sheweth as under: -

1. That the contents of main Review Application may be treated as

the integral part and parcel of this application.

2. That the category of applicant is drawing the site plans, maps

and Naqshas ( ) for a long time and their skill is going
to equalize their lesser qualifications.

3. That the applicant has also been working in the same field since
last 5/6 years successfully and there is no complaint at all in
this respect.

4. That the respondents No. 3 & 4 were always according sanction

and approval of site plans, maps and Naqshas ( ) submitted
by the applicant, but stopped the same, under the
instructions/directions of respondents No. 1 & 2.

5. That the applicant tried to get himself enlisted under the law,
but respondents No. 1 & 2 have refused to issue the application
forms after receiving the prescribed fee.
6. That the applicant is earning bread and butter for his family
from this job and since last two months, the applicant has
become penniless due to the act and conduct of respondents.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the

respondents No. 3 & 4 may please be directed to
entertain and approve the site plans, maps and
Naqshas ( ) submitted by the applicant, till
the final applicant decision of the main petition.

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court

deems fit, may also be granted to the applicant.
APPLICANT,

Dated: __________

Through: -

Hamad Afzal Bajwa, Sheikh Muhammad Faheem,

Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan. 28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20959 C.C. No. 20176
 IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

In re: C.M. No. _________/2002

In
I.C.A. No. _________/2002
In
W.P. No. 5080/2002

Kashif Ghafoor Qadri etc. Vs. Chairman PCATP etc.

APPLICATION U/S 5 OF LIMITATION ACT, 1908.

Sheweth as under: -

1. That the contents of main I.C.A. may be treated as the integral

part and parcel of this application.

2. That the judgment in W.P. No. 5080/02 was announced on

17.10.02, while applicants applied for certified copy on 19.10.02.
The certified copy was prepared on 31.10.02 and on the same day
it was delivered to the applicants and the I.C.A. was filed on
20.11.02. The calculation is as under: -
Date of judgment: 17.10.02
Date of filing: 20.11.02
Total days: 33
Days consumed by copy branch: 13
Balance: 20

3. That the limitation for filing of appeal under article 151 of

Limitation Act is 20 days. By this reason the appeal seems to be
 within limitation. However, by the method of “inclusion and
exclusion” of days, it may be barred by time for one day.

4. That the instant I.C.A. was ready for filing on 18.11.02, but
unfortunately, the counsel for appellants was not feeling well, so
it was filed on 20.11.02.

5. That if the appeal is hit by any type of limitation, that was not
intentional delay or fault of the applicants.

It is, therefore, humbly prayed that if this appeal

is hit by some limitation, that may please be condoned
in the interest of justice.
APPLICANTS,

Dated: __________

Through: -
Hamad Afzal Bajwa, Sheikh Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan. 28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20959 C.C. No. 20176