You are on page 1of 8

IN THE COURT OF MR.

JAVED IQBAL, CIVIL JUDGE, LAHORE

In re :

MASHAAL QURESHI ETC

VS.

LAHORE AMERICAN SCHOOL ETC

(SUIT FOR DAMAGES AMOUNTING TO RS.100 MILLION)

WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS

RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS,

1) That the above titled suit is not maintainable in its present form as well as
not presented in accordance with law, hence the same is liable to be dismissed
with costs.

2) That the plaintiffs have got no cause of action to file the titled suit against
the answering defendants and as such the plaint of titled suit is liable to be
rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.

3) That the plaintiffs have not come to this Hon'ble court with clean hands as
they are guilty of concealment and suppression of true facts, hence not entitled to
any relief from this hon’ble court as prayed for.

4) That the suit has been based upon facts misconceived in Law and facts, as
well as the plaintiffs have concealed the true and material facts of the case from
this hon’ble court, hence the titled suit is liable to be dismissed being false,
frivolous and vexatious .
5) That the plaintiff No.1 is a minor and is allegedly being represented
through plaintiff No.2, however, he has never been appointed as Guardian At
Litem, as required under the law for the initiation of instant suit, hence the suit
being improperly filed, is liable to be dismissed.

6) That the titled suit is bad for mis-joinder of the parties, hence the same is
liable to be dismissed. Suit against Board of Directors of answering defendant No.1 is
not legally tenable as the Board of Directors acts as a Policy making authority and does
not intervene in administrative decisions like the matter of Scholarship, therefore, they
have wrongly been indulged in this matter

7) That the suit is barred by the provisions of Order VI Rule 15 of CPC as it is


apparent from the plaint itself that it has not been duly verified or presented to the court
in accordance with the requirements of Law. Under the law, the plaint should have been
verified with provision of necessary specifications as well as it should have been duly
attested by an Oath Commissioner. However bare perusal of plaint reveals that the
plaint has not been duly verified, As a consequence, there is no legal or valid plaint
before the court, therefore the suit under reply is liable to be dismissed on this score
alone.

ON MERITS

1. That the contents with regard to the names and addresses of the parties
contain no factual controversy required to be specifically replied.

2. That in reply to this para, it is humbly submitted that though the plaintiff

No.1 is a minor and filed the instant suit without any specification of being

represented by whom. Even there is no appointment of Guardian At Litem either

on record or even specified in the gist of the plaint. Hence the suit has

unauthorizedly been filed. As far as the specification of admission of plaintiff No.1

in the answering defendant No.1 school and her excellence is concerned, it may

respectfully be submitted here that the instant whole matter arose from non

awarding of scholarship to the plaintiff No.1. In this regard, it is relevant to

mention here that only very good academic record is not the criteria for awarding

scholarship by the answering defendant No.1, which, as a matter of fact, is the only

issue in the instant matter and all the remaining assertions have been manipulated by

the plaintiffs to count the aforesaid issue.


3. That in reply to para No.3 of the plaint, it is humbly submitted that the
answering defendant No.1 is one of the best educational institutions providing
educational services of International standards in Pakistan since last many
decades and the answering defendant No.1 is the leading educational institute in
Pakistan.

4. That the contents of this para 4 requires strict proof from the plaintiffs with
regard to academic record of plaintiff No.1 prior to her joining the answering
defendant No.1 School.

5. That the contents of para 5 of the plaint, though not admitted at its
entirety, have no nexus or made basis of the allegations and claim made in the
instant suit.

6. That the contents of this para 6 are not admitted and even have no nexus
or concern with the allegations as contained in the plaint or claim made therein.

7 to 10. That in reply to the contents of these paras, it may respectfully be

submitted here that answering defendant No.1 announced new Scholarship

Program for the year 2016-2017. The criteria for award of Scholarship was duly

provided, which was mainly revolving upon two points i.e. (i) merit and (ii) need. This

year there were only two applicants i.e. the plaintiff No.1 and one other student. After

seeking applications along with requisite documents, both the students were interviewed

by the Scholarship Committee. Considering the record and interviews, the Scholarship

Committee found the other student more eligible for the award of scholarship. Obviously

the primary consideration for award of scholarship was the above referred two points

and mainly the point of “Need”. Said decision of Scholarship Committee was accordingly

conveyed to both students through letters dated 17.08.2016. The Scholarship

Committee found the other student more deserving. For that very reason, in the letter

dated 17.08.2016, it was stated that Ms. Mashaal is welcome to apply again next year.

Upon receipt of this letter dated 17.08.2016, the plaintiff No.3 addressed an Email dated

18.08.2016 asking for an appeal option but when she was responded the same day that

no appeal is provided for Scholarship Committee decision, in her Email dated

19.08.2016, the plaintiff No.3 after making suggestions, also stated that those will help

Mashaal i.e. plaintiff No.1 to prepare for next year. There was no such demand of

provision of grounds and criteria for rejection of Mashaal’s application in Email dated
19.08.2017 of plaintiff No.3, as alleged in para 10 of plaint under reply. In Email of

August 22, the Superintendent of answering defendant No.1 also provided the policy to

the plaintiffs. On the other hand the plaintiff No.2 also thanked the School administration

for considering her daughter for Scholarship in his Email of September 09, 2016. All the

aforementioned circumstances clearly depicts that everything was normal and this has

not been such an issue which has now been floated in such manner by the plaintiffs,

thereby dragging the answering defendant No.1 i.e. the best educational institution into

the instant baseless litigation.

11. That the matter addressed to the Board of Directors i.e. defendant No.3 through

email has no relevance to the matter as the Board of Directors acts does not intervene in

administrative decisions, unless the administrative decision is against the School Policy

so they have wrongly been indulged in this matter by the plaintiff and suit is bad for ms-

joinder of parties.

12. That subsequent allegations as contained in para 12 onwards of the plaint under
reply, are vague and has nothing to do with the actual situation. There was no campaign
of maligning the plaintiff No.1 in any manner and for any reason.

13. That in response to the contents of this para, it may respectfully be submitted
here that even after his return to Pakistan, the plaintiff No.2 also thanked the School
administration for considering her daughter for Scholarship in his Email of September
09, 2016.

14 & 15. That the contents of instant paras 14 & 15 are vehemently denied being
incorrect. The answering defendant No.2 being the Administrative Head of the
answering defendant No.1 School, is responsible for all administrative actions for and on
behalf of defendant No.1 school and to respond on behalf of the school. The decision of
Scholarship Award was made by the Scholarship committee and not by the answering
defendant No.2. As stated above, the Board of Directors merely acts for policy making
and has no concern with such administrative decisions. It has wrongly been asserted
that any campaign was launched against plaintiff No.1. The grant of scholarship to other
student was made on merits and this is the sole issue on the basis of which this whole
matter has been multiplied.

16. That the contents of this para are vehemently denied being incorrect. The
incident of Quiz cheating was noted by the worthy Teachers, duly reported and
conveyed to the plaintiffs. In response thereto, the father of Mashaal i.e. plaintiff No.2 in
his email dated 3rd October 2016 categorically stated as under’
“I will speak to Mashaal and rest assure that this will not happen again.--------------
----Since this is the first time she did so this retake would serve her as a warning.

We will also speak to her and will make sure this does not happen again at all.”

This clearly depicts that the plaintiffs were well aware of the actual situation of said
matter. Therefore, it is a baseless allegation on the part of the plaintiffs that it was meant
to defame and malign Ms Mashaal or to force her to leave school. It is also relevant to
mention here that the plaintiffs No.2 and 3 themselves withdrew the plaintiff No.1 from
the answering defendant No.1 School as intimated through email dated 12.10.2016 and
thereafter cleared all dues upon school leaving on 14.10.2016, without any allegation at
that time. Hence at this juncture any alleged claim of plaintiffs is untenable.

17. That the contents of this para are denied being incorrect. the fact of the
matter is that during SISA tournament while on ride, the plaintiff No.1 demonstrated
disrespect and insubordination towards the Coaches which matter was duly reported by
the Teachers and coaches and accordingly the Secondary Principal had to take action of
suspension from school, in terms of policies of answering defendant No.1. Said decision
was duly conveyed to the plaintiffs vide letter dated October 04, 2016. There was
nothing in violation of any disciplinary proceedings and never meant to target the plaintiff
No.1.

18. That the contents as narrated in this para are vehemently denied. There
was absolutely no malice on the part of the answering defendants. The
answering defendant No.1 is a prestigious and leading Educational Organization
providing the best educational services since last over six decades in Pakistan. The
answering defendant No.1 is providing the best quality Education and is known
throughout the World for its educational services and for this very reason alongside the
Pakistani students a number of foreign students are also being taking education from the
defendant No.1 school. There was no such attempt to destroy any student’s career.
However, it may respectfully be submitted here that nobody is allowed to disrupt
and commit breach of any discipline at any stage, which the plaintiff No.1 has
committed.

19. That the contents of this para are absolutely false and incorrect and hence
denied vehemently. The titled suit has been filed on the basis of untrue and false
assertions and the plaintiffs have concealed the true facts of the case to mislead
this hon’ble court. The scholarship was granted by the Committee on merits.

20. That the contents of this para are denied vehemently being incorrect.
There was absolutely nothing malicious campaign against the plaintiff No.1 in
any manner. This whole issue was raised by the plaintiffs when the scholarship
was given to another deserving student. It never meant that plaintiff No.1 was
refused or declined but the scholarship was given to a more deserving candidate
and there was no adverse action against the plaintiff No.1. Mere non-award of
scholarship does not mean that the right of quality education was denied to the
plaintiff No.1.

21. That the contents of para No.21 of the plaint are denied being incorrect
and false. The legal Notice sent on behalf of the plaintiff was duly responded.

22. Denied vehemently. The plaintiff has been dealt in accordance with law
and policies of the answering defendant No.1. There was absolutely no injustice
done to anyone.

23. Denied being incorrectly stated. Through the instant suit under reply false,
frivolous and baseless allegations have been leveled against the answering defendants
to injure the repute and dignity of the answering defendants, for which answering
defendants reserve their right to take the legal actions at all available forums. The
alleged break up of damages is false and frivolous and without any substantiation. On
the other hand, it is also relevant to mention here that the plaintiffs No.2 and 3
themselves withdrew the plaintiff No.1 from the answering defendant No.1 School as
intimated through email dated 12.10.2016 and thereafter cleared all dues upon school
leaving on 14.10.2016, without any allegation at that time. Hence at this juncture any
alleged claim of plaintiffs is untenable.

24. That the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the titled suit against the
answering defendants. Hence no cause of action survived and as such the plaint
of titled suit is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Even
otherwise no civil suit against administrative internal decisions of a school is
tenable.

25. That this is the matter of an internal administrative decision of the


answering defendant No.1 School under its own policies, which cannot be
agitated before this Honorable Court, as such there arises no question of
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court.

Under the facts and circumstances mentioned above, It is therefore, most

respectfully prayed that the titled suit may kindly be dismissed forthwith as not

maintainable being barred by law as well as having no cause of action for filing

the instant suit.


The plaintiff be burdened with special costs under section 35-A CPC in

the supreme interest of justice.

___________ ____________ __________


(For LAS) (For Board of Directors) (Ms. Kathy Khan)

ANSWERING DEFENDANTS

THROUGH

SHAHID IKRAM SIDDIQUI


Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan
9-G, Mushtaq Ahmad Gurmani Road,
Gulberg-II, Lahore.

RAO ATHAR AKHLAQ MUHAMMAD FAIZAN SALEEM


Advocate High Court Advocate

Verification
Verified on oath at Lahore on this day of 2017 that the contents
of paras No.1 to are correct and true to the best of our knowledge and belief
and that of the remaining paras No. to along with the preliminary objections
are true to the best of our information received and believed by us to be correct.

___________ ____________ __________


(For LAS) (For Board of Directors) (Ms. Kathy Khan)

ANSWERING DEFENDANTS
(M.Faizan)