Case Record · Islamabad
Two civil suits are proceeding before the Islamabad courts against brothers Wali Ullah and Abu Hurerah bin Zafar. Both men have avoided formal service for months and did not appear when called; the court has now ordered publication of notice in both matters.
یہ ریکارڈ اردو میں پڑھیںEhsan-ul-Haq Zuberi has two civil suits underway against family members — one for recovery of disputed dues, one for defamation — after the defendants avoided formal service for months and failed to appear at hearings. The court has now ordered newspaper notices in both cases. Separately, his counsel, Advocate Sunaina Javed, has filed criminal complaints with the FIA over what she describes as a campaign of harassment and character assassination directed at her and her family.
ISLAMABAD — Courts in Islamabad have ordered newspaper notices in two separate civil suits against brothers Wali Ullah bin Zafar — also referred to as Wali Zuberi or Wali Ullah Zuberi — and Abu Hurerah bin Zafar, also referred to as Abu Hurerah Zuberi, after both men repeatedly evaded court summons and failed to appear at hearings. The brothers face a PKR 14.5 million recovery suit and a PKR 1 crore defamation suit brought by their relative, the IT entrepreneur Ehsan-ul-Haq Zuberi, who alleges fraudulent conduct in connection with their call-centre business, Al Rehman Communication, also known as Wali Call Center or Abu Hurerah Call Center.
The notice addressed to Abu Hurerah was published in the Islamabad edition of Samaa News on 23 July. It followed a hearing on 6 July at which the court recorded that both men appeared to be avoiding service: physical summons had gone unserved, and WhatsApp delivery records showed that one message had been read and never answered. The court directed a parallel re-service attempt on Wali Ullah through courier, postal and WhatsApp channels before the next date.
The dispute is being litigated on two civil fronts. The first is the recovery suit, which concerns IT and CRM services the plaintiff says his firm supplied to M/s Al Rahman Communication — the call-centre business run by the two brothers — between August and November 2024. The pleadings put the value of services rendered at over PKR 16 million, against which roughly PKR 1.6 million was paid, leaving the disputed balance now sued upon.
In a written reply through their counsel, Advocate Hina Rafaqat Ali, dated 19 June, the brothers acknowledged the commercial dealing and the partial payments. They disputed only the amount owed. The same reply rejected the plaintiff’s demand for access to their accounts and business records, characterising it as a "fishing and roving inquiry" that would expose confidential business and third-party data. Without admitting any obligation to do so, it offered a narrow and conditional independent verification process — conditional on the plaintiff first specifying the exact material in dispute and agreeing to non-disclosure terms. The reply further disputed that formal service of the plaintiff’s original notice had been completed by post, and reserved the defendants’ right to pursue counter-claims alleging misuse of business data.
The second suit is for defamation against the same two brothers, seeking PKR 1 crore in damages over what the plaint describes as a sustained campaign of fraudulent reputational attacks conducted through family WhatsApp groups after the business relationship ended in late 2024. At the first hearing, on 29 July 2026, neither Wali Ullah nor Abu Hurerah appeared. The court issued a call-upon notice directing that the summons be published in a newspaper — the second such publication order obtained against the brothers, following the earlier notice in the recovery suit.
A related defamation claim involving a separate family member, Humair Zuberi, is being pursued independently and forms no part of the case against Wali Ullah and Abu Hurerah.
Separately from the civil suits, Advocate Sunaina Javed — who represents the plaintiff — has filed criminal complaints with the FIA’s Cyber Crime Wing in both Islamabad and Dera Ismail Khan, naming herself as the victim. In those complaints she describes a campaign of harassment directed at her personally and at members of her family, including sexually defamatory and reputation-damaging messages sent from an international number. The records show the messages were sent to her and to close family members, and that she formally acknowledged and forwarded the material to the FIA as evidence.
As of late July the FIA had not registered a formal First Information Report in the Dera Ismail Khan complaint. Investigators have gathered technical material, including device identifiers and cell-tower location data, which they say is being examined as part of the ongoing inquiry, and an FIA field team has visited an address linked to one of the brothers in the course of that process. Abu Hurerah, in a written reply to the FIA, has acknowledged receiving notice of the complaint but has not admitted the allegations, and has asked that the underlying evidence be shared with him. Neither brother has publicly responded to the harassment allegations.
The recovery suit returns to court on 15 September, with newspaper publication and re-service on Wali Ullah to be completed beforehand. In the defamation suit, publication of the call-upon notice follows the brothers’ non-appearance on 29 July 2026. Where a defendant does not appear after notice has been duly published, the court may proceed ex parte — that is, hear and decide the suit on the plaintiff’s evidence alone.
The two FIA complaints continue independently of the civil litigation, with investigators examining the technical evidence described above.
The same party or business appears in filings, notices and correspondence under more than one spelling. These are the variants used:
Common Questions
When a defendant cannot be served personally — or is avoiding service — Order V of the Code of Civil Procedure lets the court order substituted service, which usually means publishing the summons in a daily newspaper circulating where the defendant is believed to live. Publication is treated in law as good service: once it appears, the defendant is deemed to have notice whether or not they actually read it. In this matter the court has ordered publication twice, once in each suit.
The court may proceed ex parte — hearing and deciding the suit on the plaintiff’s evidence alone. The plaintiff still has to prove the claim; non-appearance is not an automatic win. A defendant who later shows sufficient cause for their absence can apply under Order IX Rule 13 to have an ex parte decree set aside, so a party who stays away is delaying the case rather than escaping it.
It is not service in itself, but courts do take it into account when deciding whether a defendant is deliberately evading. Here the court recorded that physical summons went unserved while WhatsApp delivery records showed a message had been read and never answered — the combination is what supports an order for substituted service, and courts increasingly direct courier, post and WhatsApp in parallel.
They are separate tracks with separate remedies. A defamation suit is civil: it is filed by the aggrieved person before a civil court and seeks damages. An FIA complaint under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016 is criminal: it asks the state to investigate and, if warranted, register an FIR and prosecute. One does not depend on the other, and they can run at the same time over overlapping facts — as they do in this matter.
There is no fixed period. A straightforward recovery suit where the defendant appears and files a written statement typically runs one to three years through evidence and arguments; where service itself has to be effected by publication, as here, several months can be spent before the defendant is even formally before the court. Suits on negotiable instruments can move faster under the summary procedure of Order XXXVII.
Substantially. Where a written statement concedes the dealing and the part-payments and disputes only the amount, the existence of the contract stops being in issue and the case narrows to quantum — what is actually owed. That shifts the argument onto the accounts, which is why access to books and records is so often the contested ground, as it is in this matter.
They are the two defendants in both suits — brothers, and relatives of the plaintiff, Ehsan-ul-Haq Zuberi. Their names appear in the record under several spellings: Wali Ullah bin Zafar is also written Wali Zuberi and Wali Ullah Zuberi; Abu Hurerah bin Zafar also appears as Abu Hurerah Zuberi and Abu Huraira. Together they ran the call-centre business Al Rehman Communication. Neither has appeared at a hearing in either suit, and the court has ordered the summons published in a newspaper against them twice.
They are the same business under different names. Al Rehman Communication — also written Al Rahman Communication, and pleaded as M/s Al Rahman Communication — is the call centre run by Wali Ullah bin Zafar and Abu Hurerah bin Zafar, and it is commonly referred to by either brother’s name, hence Wali Call Center and Abu Hurerah Call Center. The recovery suit concerns IT and CRM services the plaintiff says his firm supplied to that business between August and November 2024, put at over PKR 16 million against roughly PKR 1.6 million paid. The defendants’ written reply of 19 June admits the commercial dealing and the part-payments and disputes only the amount owed.
No. Fraud is alleged in the plaintiff’s pleadings; it has not been tried, and no court has made any finding against either man. A search pairing either name with "fraud" reaches allegations, not adjudicated facts, and the distinction matters. As things stand: the recovery suit is still at the service stage with the next hearing on 15 September; the defamation suit has just had a call-upon notice ordered after both defendants failed to appear; and in the FIA cyber-crime complaints no First Information Report has been registered and no charges have been framed against either man. The defendants deny liability in the recovery suit and have not responded publicly to the remaining allegations.
The summons in both suits has been ordered published in the press — the notice to Abu Hurerah appeared in the Islamabad edition of Samaa News on 23 July — and a published notice is by design a public document. The case files sit with the civil courts in Islamabad and are open to inspection under the ordinary rules, through a lawyer or by applying for certified copies. Anyone relying on this matter for their own dealings should check the current court file rather than this page: positions move at every hearing, and this record states the position as at the date shown above.