1

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE MULTAN

AHMAD AJMAL, SHOP MANAGER HUSH PUPPIES SHOES
SHOP, GULGASHT, MULTAN.
PLAINTIFF

VS.

1. THE CITY DISTRICT GOVERNMENT MULTAN THROUGH ITS
ADMINISTRATOR/DCO MULTAN.
2. ZABTA KHAN CONTRACTOR (FOR COLLECTION OF
ADVERTISEMENT FEE OF CDG MULTAN)
3. MUHAMMAD ARIF MANAGER OF THE CONTRACTOR:
OFFICE AT HOUSE NO.1051-A/7, ALMUSTAFA COLONY
(BEHIND QURESHI DENTAL CLINIC) KHANEWAL ROAD
MULTAN.
DEFENDANTS

SUIT FOR DECLARATION, PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND
RECOVERY OF MONEY.

The Plaintiff submits respectfully

1. That the shoes shop, named as Hush Puppies shop in Multan, is
owned by Firhaj Footwear (Pvt.) Ltd Lahore, a Pakistani Private
Limited Company, incorporated vide the Registration No. L 01559
dated 30
th
April, 1989, of the Joint Registrar of Companies, under the
Securities & Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP).
2. That the Plaintiff has fixed the Shop-Sign- Boards on the shop. These
Boards are not for the registered office of the Company, but are only
the shop-sign- boards, whereas the office of the owner Company is at
Lahore.
3. That the Defendant No.1 CDG Multan issued the Schedule of
Advertisement Fees, for Multan, vide its Notification No.807 (E&T),
dated 7-6-2012, published in The Punjab Gazette on 20
th
June, 2012,
in its extraordinary-issue. The relevant part for the purpose of this
suit, is reproduced as under:-


2



Sl.
No.
Details of advertisement. Category Advertisement Fee
5 Companies/Firms boards A, B & C Rs. 10 PSF P.M

6. Shop sign every kind A, B & C Rs.5 PSF P.M

11. Banks/Insurance Company A Rs.30 PSF P.M.
& Multinational company B & C Rs.25 PSF P.M.

4. That the Defendant No.3 (stating to be the Manager of the
Contractor/Defendant No.2) claimed to have got the Contract for the
collection of the Advertisement Fee, for the current Financial Year,
from the Defendant No.1.
5. That the shop- signs of every kind, fall under Sl.No.6 of the Schedule,
and the Plaintiff, if at all liable to pay the advertisement fee thereupon
is obliged to pay the same @ Rs.5 only, per square foot.
6. That according to the measurements of the shop-sign-boards, the
Plaintiff was liable to pay the annual fee, there for, at the most, to the
tune of Rs.11000 approximately, whereas the Defendant No.3
demanded the fee to the tune of Rs.66000, i.e. @ 30 PSF, placing the
shop-sign boards, unjustly, under Sl.No.11. He claimed that these
shop-signs are to be considered as the Office- Boards of Hush
Puppies, which he said again falsely, was a Multinational Company.
7. That this is pertinent to point out that, Hush Puppies is no Company at
all in the whole world. It is only a Trade Mark of an American
national Company incorporated in the name of M/S Wolverine, from
whom the Firhaj Footwear has only got the Licence to use the Trade
Mark, under the Trade Marks Law of Pakistan, for a limited time.
8. That the Defendant No.3 was adamant to extort the higher rate for the
shop-sign, without even any formal written Notice/letter as required
by law. He threatened, otherwise, to remove the Plaintiffs shops
Boards forcibly, if the fees were not paid at the undue higher rates at
Sl.No.11, meant for Banks/Insurance/Multinational Companies etc,
and the City District Government Multan supported it unduly, for no
good reasons.
9. That the plaintiff had thus to file a suit for an injunction against the
Defendants, not to make the undue demand. The Plaintiff was allowed
the ad interim injunction initially, but on its vacation, in any way, the
Defendant No.3 removed away the plaintiffs sign boards out and out
illegally, just to coerce the Plaintiff to pay undue charges/ ad fee,
which was otherwise recoverable as arrears of land revenue under the
Local Government laws.
10. That the Plaintiff was ultimately coerced to pay Rs.35000, against a
receipt from the Defendant No.1, instead of the due amount of
Rs.11000 only. The excess amount of Rs.24000 so paid by the
3

Plaintiff, under protest, is recoverable from the Defendants, as it is an
unjust levy.
11. That since the circumstances had changed the Plaintiff withdrew from
his suit for Injunction, with permission to file another suit.

HENCE THIS SUIT.


12. That the defendants demand and recovery of the ad fee at the higher
rate is simply illegal, against the Notification and unjust, because the
shop in question is only a shop, having its shop-sign-boards, and these
are not even the office-sign-boards of the owner, a national Company.
13. That the owner of the shop Firhaj Footwear has also nothing to do
with the ownership/business of the said American Company, nor is it
her subsidiary or holding any of its shares. Firhaj Footwear Pvt. Ltd.
is no more than a national Company of Pakistan, registered in Lahore,
carrying no business, away from the borders of Pakistan. It is not at all
a multinational company either, and the Defendants cannot produce
any proof to call it a Multinational Company.
14. That the Plaintiffs shop sign boards do not attract the fee of the office
boards of a national company, much less those of a Multinational
Company, but the Defendants are unjustly adamant on the
Contractors stance, that these should be treated as the sign boards of
a Multinational Company and charged as such.
15. That there are the two distinct laws of Trade Marks Ordinance 2001,
concerning the use of a trade-mark under a Licence - as Hush Puppies
in the Plaintiffs case; and Companies Ordinance 1984, under which
the Companies (National/Multinational) are incorporated. But the
Defendants do not appreciate the distinction with a malade intention.
16. That the Defendant also misinterpreted the Notification to extort the
excess amount, from the Plaintiff. Neither the sign boards were fixed
on the office of the owner Company, nor was it at all a multinational
Company, as was evident conclusively, from the SECP Certificate of
Incorporation. The defendants have just hoodwinked the facts and the
law, without any reasonable reason.
17. That the cause of action arose in favor of the Plaintiff and against the
Defendants, firstly, when the Defendant placed an undue demand for
the ad fee; secondly, when he charged the excess amount of Rs.24000,
illegally and forcibly; and it is still continuing.
18. That as the dispute relates to the district of Multan, this honorable
court has got the jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
19. That the value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction
is fixed at Rs.24000, which amount of value, does not attract the
payment/affixation of any court fee.

P R A Y E R
In view of the above facts and circumstances it is most respectfully
prayed that a Decree be passed in favor of the Plaintiff and against the
Defendants, as under:
4

1. For a Declaration to the effect that the Plaintiffs shop-sign-boards
are liable for the ad fee at the rate of Rs.5 PSF, under Sl.No.6 of
the Schedule;
2. The owner of the shop Firhaj Footwear (Pvt) Ltd is only a national
company and not at all a Multinational Company.
3. As a consequential relief, for a permanent injunction, restraining
the Defendants from claiming/charging the ad fee at the undue
higher rate, on any such lame excuse.
4. For the recovery of over charged money to the tune of Rs.24000
with prevalent interest till the final disposal of the suit.
5. Any other relief deemed fit in the circumstances of the case may
also kindly be granted;
6. Costs of the suit may also kindly be awarded.


PLAINTIFF
Through:


ADVOCATE


VERIFICATION


Verified on oath, at Multan on this_____ 2014, that the contents of the
Paragraphs No. 1 to 11 of the Plaint are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge; and the contents of the rest of the Paragraphs are true and
correct to the best of my information and belief.




PLAINTIFF

5

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE MULTAN

AHMAD AJMAL, MANAGER HUSH PUPPIES SHOES SHOP
GULGASHT, MULTAN.
PLAINTIFF

VS.

1. THE CITY DISTRICT GOVERNMENT MULTAN THROUGH ITS
ADMINISTRATOR/DCO MULTAN.
2. ZABTA KHAN CONTRACTOR (FOR COLLECTION OF
ADVERTISEMENT FEE OF CDG MULTAN)
3. MUHAMMAD ARIF MANAGER OF THE CONTRACTOR:
OFFICE AT HOUSE NO.1051-A/7, ALMUSTAFA COLONY
(BEHIND QURESHI DENTAL CLINIC) KHANEWAL ROAD
MULTAN.
DEFENDANTS
SUIT FOR DECLARATION, PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND FOR
RECOVERY OF MONEY.

APPLICATION under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2, S. 151 CPC.

Respectfully sheweth:

1. That the above titled suit is pending adjudication before this
honourable Court where-for no date of hearing has yet been
fixed.
2. That the contents of the plaint may be read as an integral part of
this application.
3. That there is a good prima facie arguable case in favor of the
petitioner and there is every likelihood of its success.
4. That balance of convenience also lies in favor of the issuance of
an ad interim injunction, as prayed hereunder.
5. That if the respondents are not restrained from raising the undue
and illegal demand in future also; or the shop sign boards are
removed illegally to extort undue money, the Petitioner will
suffer an irreparable loss and injury.
P R A Y E R

Under the above said submissions it is most respectfully prayed that
the respondents may very kindly be restrained from terming the shop-signs
as Company-office-board-signs, or terming the owner as a multinational
company, demanding the illegal excess fee and from removing/disturbing
any more, the sign boards, forcibly, till the final disposal of the suit.


Petitioner
Through

Advocate

6

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE MULTAN




AHMAD AJMAL, MANAGER HUSH PUPPIES SHOES SHOP
GULGASHT, MULTAN.
PLAINTIFF

VS.

4. THE CITY DISTRICT GOVERNMENT MULTAN THROUGH ITS
ADMINISTRATOR/DCO MULTAN.
5. ZABTA KHAN CONTRACTOR (FOR COLLECTION OF
ADVERTISEMENT FEE OF CDG MULTAN)
6. MUHAMMAD ARIF MANAGER OF THE CONTRACTOR:
OFFICE AT HOUSE NO.1051-A/7, ALMUSTAFA COLONY
(BEHIND QURESHI DENTAL CLINIC) KHANEWAL ROAD
MULTAN.
DEFENDANTS

SUIT FOR DECLARATION, PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND
RECOVERY OF MONEY.


AFFIDAVIT OF Mr. Ahmad Ajmal, . Manager, Hush Puppies Shoes
Shop, Gulgasht, Multan.

That the deponent herby solemnly affirms and declares that the
contents of the Suit as well as those of the Application are true and correct to
the best of his knowledge and belief and nothing has been concealed.


DEPONENT

Verified on oath at Multan, on this______ 2014, that the contents of
the above affidavit are correct and true, to the best of my knowledge and
belief and nothing has been concealed.

DEPONENT