Updated: Tuesday April 03, 2012/AthThulatha Jamada El Oula 12, 1433/Mangalavara Chaitra 14, 1934, at 06:29:18 AM

Course Contents:---

1.      Pleadings in India with precedents by Sir C. Walsh and J. C. Weir.

Book Recommended:---

1.      The Art of Pleading and Conveyancing by Nasim Sabir Chaudhary.

Virtue is its own reward ( E BA BĂA Ӹ).

There are many types of courts, i.e., civil Court, family Court, rent controller, banking tribunal, labour Court, drug Court, service tribunal etc.

Every Court has its jurisdiction. Jurisdiction may involve pecuniary, territorial, subject matter, and parties.

Civil Courts include Civil Court First Class, Second Class, and Third Class. Case related to one class cannot be processed in another Court. Case without jurisdiction is declared null and void. S. 9 of Civil Procedure Code deals with the plenary (definite) jurisdiction but subject to express or implied bar.

Terminology used in civil cases: These are some terminologies used in civil cases:---

1.      Suit for possession (IBμae ̧e).

2.      Application for ejectment (ӼafI AjI OmAaie).

3.      Suit for recovery of money (f ik B e ̧e).

4.      Suit for injunction (BNA Y).

5.      Suit for declaration (iAjNmA Y).

6.      Suit for specific performance (wNb M).

7.      Agreement to sell (I fB).

8.      Agreement of sale (BĨI). It is duly executed deed.

Family Court acts under Family Court Act, 1964. Under its jurisdiction following comes:---

1.      Dissolution of marriage (Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, 1939).

2.      Restitution of Conjugal Rights.

3.      Jactitation of Marriage (false pretence of being married). Where a person boasts or gives out that he or she is married to someone, whereby a common reputation of their marriage may ensue; in such a case the person aggrieved may present a petition praying a decree of perpetual silence against the jactitator.

4.      Dower.

5.      Maintenance.

6.      Guardianship.

7.      Custody of children.

Pleading is a mother of every case and every pleading contains:---

1.      Plaint (ӧf ̧e yj): Plaintiff submits his grievances under plaint.

2.      Written statement (μ Bf AkA ̧e LAU): It is reply of plaint. Defendant advances it.

3.      Issues (PBδM): Differences arises out from plaint and written statement helps in framing of facts in issue. Only Court can frame facts in issue.

4.      Evidence (PeBq): It is an act by which facts in issue are proved or disproved. Evidence may either be ocular or documentary. It is pre-arguments stage.

5.      Arguments (SZI): Stage where counsels of both parties argue in favour of their claims after recording the evidence. It is post evidence stage.

6.      Judgement (): It is finality of the suit.

First appeal lies in the Court of District Judge. Second appeal lies to High Court and final appeal lies to Supreme Court.

1.      Plea (ۿ):

2.      Plead (Bj s΂):

3.      Pleader ():

4.      Pleading (Bj s΂ ۿ):

To plead means to address the Court on behalf of either the plaintiff or the defendant. Pleading therefore would mean statement-making acquisition of allegation and replies thereto made in a legal action.

Pleadings are statements in writing drawn up and filed by each party to a case, stating what his contention will be at the trial and giving all such details as his opponent needs to know in order to prepare his case in answer.

Every pleading shall contain, and contain only, a statement in a concise form of the material facts, on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence, as the case may be, but not the evidence by which they are to be proved.

Written or printed statements delivered alternately by the parties to one another, until the questions of fact and law to be decided in an action have been ascertained, i.e., until issue is joined.

 

 

Pleading (Order VI of CPC)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Plaint (Order VII of CPC)

Written Statement (Order VIII of CPC)

 

No proper language is prescribed for pleading. It can be either in English or Urdu. Civil Procedure Code defines pleading to mean plaint and written statement.

Objects of pleading: The whole object of pleading is to ascertain (determine, establish) with precision the points on which the parties and the points on which they differ and thus to bring them to definite issue. In written statement facts are stated either admitted ( μnM Omie) or not admitted ( μnM Omie B iBA).

In this way the parties are enabled to induce (persuade, urge) proper evidence to prove their respective cases.

Pleadings have to clear, definite, and precise. If the pleadings are waived, the Court may examine the party concerned and tie him down to definite pleadings.

Rules of pleading: Following is guidance for drafting pleadings:---

1.      Whole facts: State or write your whole case in your pleadings, i.e., all the material facts on which you relies for your claim or defence.

2.      Avoid law: Do not cite or write the law. Only write/state/cite the facts in your pleading.

3.      Avoid evidence: Do not state the evidence by which such facts are to be proved. Evidence may either be oral, written, documentary, or circumstantial etc.

4.      Avoid anticipation: Do not anticipate opponents pleading and plead to anything, which is not alleged against you.

5.      Be concise: State your facts concisely and precisely.

6.      Avoid arguing: Do not argue in the pleadings.

Fundamental rule: Order 6, Rule 2 is the fundamental rule of pleading. When analyzed, it will be found to require four things:---

1.      Every pleading must state facts and not law.

2.      It must state material facts, and material facts only.

3.      It must state only the facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence, and not the evidence by which they are to be proved.

4.      It must state such facts in a concise form.

Object of pleadings: The main object or one of the main objects of this rule that the one party may know what are the facts on which the other party relies in order that he may be prepared to meet the case.

Material fact: According to Order 6, Rule 4, the following are material facts:---

If you allege fraud, cheating, misrepresentation, then give particulars of such fraud etc.

If it is not done then the Court will take notice brevity (briefness, shortness) allegation of fraud.

Every fact which a plaintiff must allege in order to show a right to sue.

Every fact which a defendant must allege in order to constitute his defence.

If either the plaintiff or the defendant puts their case on alternative grounds, every fact vital to any such alternative ground.

Every fact which may not be necessary to show a right of suit but which the plaintiff will be required to prove at the trial to support his case.

Every fact, which the defendant is required to prove at the trial, and which will be a defence either wholly or partly to the plaintiffs claim.

Presumption of law: Order 6, Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code lays down neither party need in any pleading allege any matter of fact which the law presumes in his favour or to which the burden of proof lies upon the other side, unless the same has first been specifically denied, e.g., consideration for a bill of exchange, where the plaintiff sues only on the bill and not for the consideration as a substantive ground of claim.

Verification: It is an admission of the truth of the facts asserted in plaint and written statement. Without making verification plaint remains incomplete and liable to reject.

In the end the pleading it shall be signed by the both plaintiff and defendant and the date of the presentation of the suit will be given. Thereafter the contents of the pleading shall be verified in accordance with the provisions of Order 6, Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The person verifying shall specify, by reference to the numbered paragraphs of the pleading, what he verifies of his own knowledge and what he verifies upon information received and believed to be true.

The verification shall be signed by the person making it and shall state the date on which and the place at which was signed.

There are four important points in verifications, i.e., place, date, personal knowledge, and belief.

Place means place where plaintiff or defendant, i.e., maker of verification resides, e.g., Lahore, Karachi, Quetta, Peshawar, Muzaffarabad etc.

Date means date on which verification is made and signed by both the plaintiff and defendant.

Verification of personal knowledge means the verification of facts put in pleading.

Verification of belief means the verification of the legal knowledge received from the lawyer.

Territorial jurisdiction: Cause of action arose at Lahore and therefore honour-able Court has jurisdiction to proceed this suit. It falls in the verification where legal knowledge lies.

Cause of action: It means the facts of the issue.

Court fee and valuation: The value of the subject matter of the suit is for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction. Jurisdiction effects the suit for the purpose of appeal after the judgement. Where valuation is more than Rs. 200,000/-, the suit is filed in the Court of District Judge. When District Judge works for criminal matters then he is termed as Session Judge.

Need of verification: It avoids the unnecessary litigation like mala-fide intention. Without verification Court does not accept pleading. Where wrong facts and verification is made, Court gives punishment with imprisonment.

Amendments of pleadings: Sometimes it is essential for the parties to amend their own pleadings, before or during proceedings of a suit. Such amendments become necessary, when, for example, some fresh information is received, or when the interrogatories have been fully answered by the opposite party or when documents previously unknown have come to light.

Where necessary facts have been omitted and without which pleading remains incomplete or weak then amendments in pleadings are allowed provided Court is satisfied.

The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend its pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just. All such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties, the Court may at any stage of the proceedings. It is discretion and not compulsion on the part of Court.

 

 

Pleading (Proceedings)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Plaint

Application

(when made)

Written Statement

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Issues

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evidence

 

 

 

 

 

Arguments

 

 

 

 

 

 

Judgement

 

 

 

 

 

 

First Appeal (District Judge)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Second Appeal (High Court)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Third and Final Appeal (Supreme Court)

 

Above chart shows the proceedings and at any stage Court may (discretionary) permit either party to alter or amend the plaint or written statement. Application is made to the Judge concerned for alteration, which must be bona-fide and not scandalous, mala-fide, or prejudice.

Things for which amendments in pleadings are not allowed: They are as under:---

1.      Where there amendment changes the nature of suit.

2.      Where new relief is added or asked.

3.      Where new cause of action is arisen by new application.

Example: There was a woman got married with a man independently and got registered Marriage. She went her paternal home rather than to her husband home. When her family gets knowledge of her being married, they put pressure for the denial of this marriage. She brought lawsuit against her husband denying marriage. After six months she brought an application for amendment in plaint tending the cancellation of Marriage Certificate being illegal certificate taken fraudulently. Since application had material which was either sufficient to change entire nature of case or change of cause of action or new relief was added therefore application was liable to reject.

Example: In another example A sued B for pronote amounting to Rs. 500,000/-. After four years instituting the case A brought an application of amendment requesting to incorporate another amount of loan. Since it has effect to add new relief and also case was time barred therefore it was rejected.

If by chaining or amending the pleading, a legal right which has already accrued in favour of the other party, that legal right would stand prejudiced or destroyed in such as case also amendment cannot be allowed.

Clerical error or amendment for correcting mis-description of parties where it does not add new parties is permissible.

New parties are not allowed where the plea sought to be taken, by way of amendment is one which could have been taken in the original plaint such an amendment will be permissible. Mere delay is no ground for refusal of amendment. The provisions of this rule should be liberally construed. The amendment can be made at any stage of the proceeding. The discretionary power of the Court is very wide for the reason of facilitating administration of justice and to avoid multiplicity of litigation. The only limitation on the power is that it should not cause injustice to the other party. Words at any stage mean during pendency of the suit and an appeal is a continuation of the suit. Therefore an appellate Court can also allow amendment after admission of the appeal.

First appeal is right of defendant. Every decree is appeal-able. It must be admitted. Appeal in Supreme Court requires leave to appeal of Supreme Court. When it is granted then it is considered admitted.

Regular Second Appeal (RSA) is liable to dismiss in limine and no notice is sent to the other party. If such an Writ Petition or Regular Second Appeal is admitted to regular hearing then notice is sent to opposite party.

When the amendment is sought to be made, would neither take away any legal right of the opposite party nor regulated in any loss to that party then the amendment is allowed is permissible and opposite party may be compensated by grant of cost.

Proposed amendment should be in writing and in explicit (clear or specific) form. General prayer for amendment cannot be allowed.

Plaint (ӧf ̧e yj)

In the Court of Senior Civil Judge (Malik Khuda Baksh Tiwana), Lahore

 

Nasir

51 N, Gulberg III, Lahore

Plaintiff

Versus

 

Mansoor

16 B, Township, Lahore

Defendant

Suit for recovery of money (f ik B e ̧e)

Respectfully Sheweth (shows, states, or submits):---

1.      That the plaintiff and defendant had .

2.      That .

3.      That .

4.      That .

5.      That .

6.      That cause of action accrued on

7.      . Territorial jurisdiction

8.      That value of the subject matter for the purposes of suit valuation and court fee

Prayer .

 

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

through

Sardar Shahbaz Khan

Advocate

Turner Road, Lahore

Verification

Plaint: Plaint is part of pleading. Application is also pleading. Plaint is generally understood is a memorial or memorandum in writing submitted to a Court of law in which the person concerned, i.e., the plaintiff submits or writes his cause of action. It is the first process tendered to a competent Court of law in the nature of original action whereby the aid of the Court is invoked.

In other country, for instance, UK, such a memorial is called a statement of claims. This word is not defined in Code of Civil Procedure therefore it shall be construed in the general sense as a petition of claim put in by a plaintiff in the civil Court of original jurisdiction to initiate a civil suit.

A plaint is always in writing and it should be written in language of the Court. In Pakistan we have both English and Urdu as languages of the Court.

How to draft plaint: Following points must be kept in consideration while drafting pleadings, i.e., plaint or written statement:---

1.      Hear and note down all material.

2.      Apply relevant law.

3.      Draft self.

4.      Discuss with client.

5.      Be serious, clam, cool, and responsible.

Contents of the plaint: Following are the contents of the plaint, which complete it according to Order 7, Rule 1:---

1.      Name of the Court.

2.      Name and full address of plaintiff or appellant or petitioner.

3.      Name and full address of defendant or respondent.

4.      Subject of the plaint such as suit for possession or application for ejectment.

5.      Material facts which constitute cause of action for the case. These are taken from story which client provides. Plaint is started as ( kAej ~j g KnY ӧf). It includes the following details:---

(1)         Date of execution of deed.

(2)         Property details.

(3)         Name of owner of property.

(4)         His address.

(5)         Advance money.

(6)         Agreement to sell.

(7)         Agreement of sale.

(8)         Purchased by registration deed.

(9)         Token money.

(10)     Advance money.

(11)     Total money involved.

(12)     Promise of delivery on certain date.

(13)     Failure in compliance of agreement.

(14)     Legal notice sent, and refusal of compliance.

6.      Paragraph showing when did cause of action accrue. (Paragraph relating to accrual of cause of action).

7.      Jurisdiction of the Court including territorial and pecuniary as well.

8.      Valuation of suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction.

9.      Verification by plaintiff.

10.  Name and signature of plaintiff.

11.  Name and signature of advocate.

Competency of Court: All the suits except, which are expressly provided or time barred, are brought in the Court of Civil Judge.

Suits in remote areas: Areas in which separate courts for separate suits are not available, law gives power to civil Judge to hear the different cases, e.g., where separately Rent Controller is not available, civil Judge is empowered and addressed as follows:---

In the Court of Senior Civil Judge (with the power of Rent Controller), Pasni

Family Court Act, 1964, has created Family Court, and laid down the law for expeditious and quick disposal of cases. Act includes substantial law while Rules are details of Act. Names of witness are also included in plaint. Decisions of Family Courts are made speedily keeping in view of the importance of family matters. Family Courts Rules were also framed in 1965. It deals with seven matters such as:---

1.      Dissolution of Muslim Marriage.

2.      Dower.

3.      Maintenance.

4.      Guardianship.

5.      Custody of Children.

6.      Jactitation of Marriage.

7.      Restitution of Conjugal Rights (qE k ̴Y).

Exclusive jurisdiction for trial of these cases vests in the Family Courts. Civil Court cannot proceed these cases.

In case of delegated divorce, wife may divorce herself in writing in a manner, in exercise of the powers delegated I divorce myself or within limits of Allah, spouses cannot live with mutual love and affection.

Jurisdiction: It is determined first when client comes for filing of suit. It includes territorial and pecuniary as well. He does not know where suit is filed. It is duty of lawyer to determine jurisdiction first.

Inconsistent plaint or written statement: Plaint or written statement should not be contradictory. For instance, in a suit of ejectment, defendant may refuse the relationship of landlord and tenant and thus may admit the payment of rent for certain time period. This plaint is liable to reject. It is notable thing here that every landlord is not owner of the property but every owner may be landlord of the property. Landlord is the person who is responsible to receive the rents and profits arising out from the property rented out. In case where land is sub-let, person who receives is supposed landlord however he is not owner of the land but mere tenant. It is also called blowing in hot and cold.

Alternative plaint or written statement: Plaint or written statement must not provide alternative points, such as, in a suit of bond first it is denied to be issued, and later on defence is made as it is time barred. It is refusal and thus pleaded. It is also called blowing in hot and cold.

Alternative and inconsistent: The plaintiff replies upon several different facts in the alternative. The defendant can also raise as many distinct and separate defenses as he likes. Thus in a suit for declaration of proprietary right, the plaintiff can also in the alternative plea for a right of pre-emption. Likewise, the defendant in a suit on a bond may take plea that he did not execute it and may also plea in the alternative that suit is barred by time.

Material fact: Every fact, which a party if bound to prove in order to succeed in his plaint or defence, is a material fact. Facts not necessary to establish either the plaint or defence are therefore not material facts. The pleader while drafting the plaint has taken only material facts and discards those, which are immaterial. However if he cannot make up his mind whether any fact is material or not material, it would be useful to plead it because at a subsequent stage of the trial. If it turns out that the fact was material, he would stand at a loss and shall not be allowed to prove it as a matter of right. However he could in suitable cases be permitted to do so only after the amendment of the plaint, which the Court may or may not allow.

Conclusion of plaint: When the plaint is adjourned on merit, it reaches on logical conclusion.

Return of plaint: If the plaint is returned then case is concluded. Under Order 7, Rule 10 a case is concluded or disposed of by these ways:---

1.      After hearing in the light of law judgement.

2.      If plaintiff or defendant does not appear on the date of proceeding (j΂ f), case comes to either cease or adjourned ex parte.

3.      Plaint is also concluded when Court returns the plaint to its originator.

4.      When Court rejects the plaint in limine, case stands disposed of.

Order 7, Rule 10 deals with return of plaint. A plaint shall be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court in case where the Court in which the suit has been filed does not have jurisdiction to proceed that suit. Here want of jurisdiction means that the suit is either not within the territorial jurisdiction or is not within the pecuniary jurisdiction. Court returning the plaint shall make an endorsement on the plaint stating reasons for the return of the plaint and also the date of presentation. In this way the question of limitation will also be covered and the amount of Court fee paid in the suit shall be saved and the plaintiff within reasonable time as may be fixed by the Court present the plaint to the proper Court.

Plaint, which is returned, neither is considered as time barred nor Court fee paid is supposed destroyed. Both remains stand there. After return of the plaint, it is not re-instituted in the Court of proper territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction but it is mere procedural matter. Fee paid remains there as paid.

Where a suit filed in Revenue Court is not try-able by that Court, the Court should not dismiss the suit, but return the plaint to be presented to the proper Court. On return of the plaint the suit should be deemed to be instituted when the plaint is presented in the proper Court. It will not be regarded as the institution of the old suit.

Rejection of plaint: A plaint shall be rejected if:---

1.      It does not disclose cause of action, which comes out from material facts;

2.      If the suit is deficiently stamped, and despite Courts order deficiency is not made up;

3.      It is under valued, and despite Courts order valuation is not corrected; and

4.      From a statement in the plaint itself, the suit appears to be barred by any law for the time being enforced.

Cause of action is one of essential requirement of the plaint, which provides remedy if facts in issue (material facts) are proved in favour of plaintiff.

Where less value of stamp is affixed Court may order for the removal of deficiency within specific time period which Court determines. Court may pass order in this way (BU ӷ î B A ifA oί i̷ ).

Where subject matter is wrongly assessed Court may order for its correct valuation under law. Failure of responsible in correction put case to an end.

Cases for which special tribunal or Court has been provided under law, if instituted on the Court having not jurisdiction on subject matter are liable to reject. A civil servant can institute his case relating to terms and conditions of service in Service Tribunal, which is provided under constitution. This case if brought in civil Court shall be rejected being not proper forum and for which special Court has been constituted.

Examples: An old man institutes a case for his maintenance against his children in the Court of Civil Judge. Despite material facts may be proved but since the remedy is not available under law so plaint shall be dismissed.

A works in and factory. A dispute arises with him. He invokes in the Court of Civil Judge. Plaint shall be rejected on the ground of master and servant relationship for which civil Court is not competent to proceed the suit. This suit can be tried in Labour Court, which is special Court to dispose of such types of suits.

Restoration of suit (f ػBZI): Suit once returned can be got restored on production of sufficient cause. Accident or reasonable delay in appearance is the sufficient causes, which can be produced for the reopening of the suit. Proper justification restores the suit.

Sues upon (PAlBNmeej): Where a plaintiff sues upon a document in his possession or power, he shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented. It includes bond, receipt, if any, legal notice etc. It is private document.

Relied upon (iBvZA ej): Where plaintiff relies upon a document whether it is in possession or not, as evidence in support of his claim, he shall enter it in a list and the list should be attached to the plaint for presentation to the Court. It includes payment in LDA after receipt, shares in business, map or plan of building, payment of debt, partnership deed, or utilization of funds after receipt etc. It is public document.

These documents are required in photocopy and original one must be produced at the time of evidence. Early production of original documents may harm in term of lost in Court. You cannot produce evidence until you comply with Order 7, Rule 14.

These documents should be entered in the list of reliance, because they may not be in possession or power of the plaintiff. Documents shall not be accepted in evidence except with the leave of Court. Bona-fide mistake is admissible in Court. If document discovers later, can be produced as evidence with the leave of Court.

A document which ought (should) to be produced in Court with the plaint or entered in the list of reliance shall not be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. However if the Court permits and grants leave to produce that document at a later stage, then the party can lead evidence.

Possible defenses: Order 6, Rule 4 deals with such provisions. Defendant always tries to deny the truth of the plaint. In the beginning of the written statement he tries to mention such preliminary objections (AfNIA PAih) such as:---

1.      Personal such as minority, insolvency, bankruptcy, lunacy etc.

2.      Fraud, misrepresentation, mistake of fact, coercion, and undue influence.

3.      Legal such as limitation, want (absence or lack) of jurisdiction, subject matter, parties, alien enemy, non-residential foreign national.

4.      Want (absence or lack) of cause of action.

5.      Denial of territorial jurisdiction.

6.      Denial of pecuniary jurisdiction.

7.      Objection on Court fee.

He states further that this Court has not jurisdiction thus plaint is not liable to proceed further ( Oi s΂ IBB ̧e AhȻ OBm iBNaA ̷ Ah OAf) or suit is barred by time ( eBAfAk ̧e) or plaint is deficiently stamped thus liable to reject ( eAejNmA IB BqA UI ̧e). After putting preliminary objections, he puts reply of the plaint on merit. Preliminary objections come under Order 7, Rule 11.

For rent matter, one appeal lie for residential rental premises in the Court of District Judge. But as far as a commercial rental premise is concerned, second appeal in High Court is permitted.

Fraud: On April 15, 2000, the plaintiff represented to the defendant verbally/orally that he owned a corner plot in the government sanctioned scheme X and that it was free from all encumbrances and that defendant will earn great profit to purchase it from the plaintiff at a reasonable price. But actually the plaintiff was not the exclusive owner and there already was an agreement to sell executed in favour of Rana who had filed a civil suit for specific performance. The plaintiff had thus fraudulently induced the defendant to purchase the said plot. Therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to receive the balance sale price because his fraud vitiated the transaction. It is general rule that every fraud would vitiate the transaction as provided in Contract Act.

Majority: That the defendant was born on October 15, 1985, and was a minor at the time when the alleged contract was executed on March 31, 1999. Therefore, the alleged contract is not enforceable against defendant at law. This must be taken into consideration that minor can receive but cannot give.

Mistake: That the instrument mentioned in paragraph (type the paragraphs number) of the plaint was prepared by the plaintiffs advocate who had been employed to draft a document necessary to carry out the contract in question. That the said document prepared by the plaintiffs advocate was signed by the defendant in the belief that it faithfully carried out the said contract but fortunately the said document was so designed that it failed to carry out the contract between the parties in the following respects.

Ae IBy1-fB-13iiE KnY

ej s΂ PAlBNme Omjȯ

 

KYBu WU

 

LBU Ae OAfI

 

μ Bf

 

BI ӧf

 

 

 

̧e

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oΰη

Bη uBY Y Bη OJn ӷ PalBNme

ev Bj

OIBQ Bη m PAlBNme

̷ jA PAlBNme ciBM OΧ

iBq jJ

e oA ̷ oU

PAlBNme bNme

nA ciBM M

، ӷ i̤ĿB jA

BΌ BB IlA Bη

j pA M BΌ Bη

Bq lBNme jA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

fJA

fķ s΂

B j s΂ (̧e yj) ӧf U 14 i 7 iiE jk Omjȯ

 

 

OAfI

 

BI

 

fI

 

̧e

 

 

 

 

 

PBIAU

PAm

jJ iBq

 

 

 

lBNme ̷ MBm ̧e yj M Bη ?̷̷ M j jA , j aAe

1

 

U j s΂ PAlBNme ̷ iA M Bη

j jA . ο iBNaA iA zJ iBM

?̷ ̷ M

2

 

i fNmA j PAlBNme n M Bη

o iA ̷ ̷ M Ni eAiA B

? ο zJ o

3

fJA

fķ s΂

Undue influence: Plaintiff was officer and was interested in the acquisition of property belonging to defendant his subordinate. Plaintiff acquired such property by making commitment that defendant shall be promoted. Plaintiff paid little amount to purchase land but now it is discovered that he is remain unable to promote or recommend promotion of the defendant. Therefore sale deed be cancelled on the ground of undue influence used by plaintiff.

Set off: It is adjustment of claims of both of the parties. It minimizes of the multiplicity of litigation. If defendant has also claim against plaintiff, he shall be deemed plaintiff upto the extent of his claim and is responsible to put requisite stamps on suit accordingly. It is not counter claim legally. It is treated as plea of defence.

A defendant can claim set off subject to the following conditions:---

1.      Set off can be claimed only in a suit for recovery of money. It means where suit is instituted for the claim other than money is not liable to set off. Transfer of Property or possession suits is not subject of set off.

2.      Claim of defendant must be legally recoverable. Time barred claim lacks locus standai thus it renders defective.

3.      Payment of Court fees upto the extent of claim in plea.

4.      In case of claim is set aside, defendant is permitted to submit written statement.

Application (not plaint) for ejectment or eviction: Subjects of this application are landlord who lent out his property and tenant in whose favour property is lent out. There are certain grounds on which this case is instituted. Some of them are on the part of landlord and rest on the part of tenant. Personal use, without consent alteration, unauthorized sublet, commission of default in payment of rent agreed, changes of structure, or damage to property.

Grounds on the part of tenant can be quoted as fair rent, landlord being not real owner, sale of property etc.

This matter is not subject of police. This purely civil matter in nature and liable to proceed with Rent Controller. It should be kept in mind that Rent Controller is not a Court and the person presiding is not supposed Judge thus matter is not a suit.

Parties in civil suit are plaintiff and defendant, in criminal case accused and victim, and in rent case applicant and respondent.

Law applicable: The law applicable in the matters of rent is the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. It was promulgated during the regime of Field Marshal Ayub Khan, the then President of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

While in dispute of the rent or litigation, rent is submitted in Court on the behalf of landlord, which finally paid upon judgement. If Court finally ejects the tenant from property, rent deposited is given to landlord and in the inverse situation vice versa.

Here is specimen of application for the ejectment or eviction of tenant.

In the Court of Senior Civil Judge (with the power of Rent Controller), Lahore

 

Muhammad Ali S/o. Nazir Ali, resident of 5 Shadman Colony, Lahore

(The Applicant)

 

iAh OmAaie B Bm

 

 

Rana Nadir Pervaiz S/o. Ghulam Muhammad, resident of 6 Shadman Colony, Lahore

(The Respondent)

 

iAh LAU B n

 

Versus BI

 

 

 

Application: for ejectment or eviction

Respectfully Sheweth:---

1.      That on January 01, 2001, the applicant rented out premises being number 6 Shadman Colony, Lahore, a pacca built house, measuring into 1 Kanal, comprising/consisting of 3 bed rooms, TV lounge, with all the fixtures and accessories with a lawn in lieu of Rs. 5,000/- as monthly rental amount of the premises/property in question payable on the 5th of each amusing month in advance. A copy of the Rent Agreement/Lease Agreement/Rent Note is attached/enclosed.

2.      That the respondent continued to make the payment of the monthly rent till September 2001, but later on committed default in the payment of the fixed rent thus contravening the Rent Note. The respondent has damaged the property as well by making major alternation without the consent of the applicant. Moreover the property in question is also required by the applicant for the personal use as residence of his son who has been very recently married and the present accommodation does not satisfy the needs of the family.

3.      That the respondent above named is constant source of torture for the applicants family who is just living in the adjacent/conterminous house.

4.      That the applicant has been left with no remedy except to file present petition for ejectment of the respondent/tenant, thus the present case before this Honable Court. Notice for vacation of the house was sent on August 15, 2001, by registered mail receipt of which is attached/enclosed.

5.      That the Cause of Action accrued on September 05, 2001, when respondent committed default in the payment of rent in the regular course and also infringed the mutually agreed terms and conditions of the Rent Note. The Cause of Action is subsisting throughout this period.

6.      That the property is situated in Lahore. The parties also reside in Lahore and the Rent Note between the parties was also executed at Lahore, therefore, this Honable Court of learned Rent Controller has jurisdiction to proceed/entertain present petition.

7.      That value of the petition for the purpose of Court fee is Rs. 200/-, on which requisite Court fee of Rs. 15/- has been paid.

Prayer: Under the circumstances it is therefore respectfully prayed that order of ejectment may kindly be issued in favour of applicant against respondent with cost.

Verification

 

Applicant

Applicant

through

Sardar Shahbaz Khan

Advocate

Turner Road, Lahore

In the Court of Senior Civil Judge (with the power of Rent Controller), Lahore

 

Muhammad Ali S/o. Nazir Ali, resident of 5 Shadman Colony, Lahore

(The Applicant)

iAh OmAaie B Bm

 

Rana Nadir Pervaiz S/o. Ghulam Muhammad, resident of 6 Shadman Colony, Lahore

(The Respondent) iAh LAU

 

Versus BI

 

Reply: for ejectment or eviction

Respectfully Sheweth (submits):---

1.      The contents of paragraph 1 of the application are admitted to be true (or mere admitted).

2.      The contents of paragraph 2 are vehemently denied.

The respondent never committed default in the payment of monthly rental amount. The respondent offered the rent for the month of October 2001 to the applicant but he was hesitant to receive the payments, which constrained the respondent to send rental amounts to the applicant through money orders but the same were returned. The postal receipts of money orders are attached.

So far as the allegation of damaging the property in question and required of for personal use is concerned, the same has been built evasively (false, misleading, deceitful) and has not reality.

3.      The allegation of torture is evasive/elusive. The respondent is Grade 18 Officer working as Income Tax Officer at Lahore.

4.      No grievance has been accrued in favour of the applicant against the answering respondent. The fact of the matter is that applicant is intending to rent out the house in question after vacating/fetch of the same to some one else to higher rent.

5.      No cause of action has arisen/accrued to the applicant against the respondent.

6.      Legal.

7.      Legal.

Prayer: Under the circumstances it is therefore respectfully prayed that the application filed by the applicant for the eviction of the respondent may kindly be dismissed with costs.

Verification

 

Respondent

Respondent

through

Aga Gul Hameed

Advocate

Fane Road, Lahore

In the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Lahore

 

 

 

 

Ticket

 

 

Jan Muhammad Malik S/o. Jamsheed Zafar, resident of 18 Shadman Colony, Lahore

(The Plaintiff) ӧf

 

Qazi Wajid S/o. Auyb Khoso, resident of 9 Shadman Colony, Lahore

(The Defendant) μ Bf

 

Versus BI

 

 

Suit: For Specific Performance of the Agreement

Respectfully Sheweth:---

1.      That the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into an agreement mutually wherein the Defendant agreed to transact the sale bargain of his property number 45 Shadman Colony, Lahore, owned and possessed by him, the detail of which is given hereunder:---

a)      South: House owned by Ms. Sana Begum (Advocate).

b)      East: Clinic owned by Dr. Reema Shan (Government Servant).

c)      West: House owned by Madam Fareeha Pervaiz (Mill Owner).

d)     North: A thoroughfare.

A copy of the agreement for sale of the house in question is attached.

2.      That as per terms and conditions of the aforementioned agreement the total sale price of the house in question was fixed at Rs. 1,000,000/- (Rupees one million only) out of which a sum of Rs. 100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) was received by the Defendant as earnest money from the Plaintiff, a receipt of which is attached. According to the agreement the Defendant was bound to accept and receive the balance amount of Rs. 900,000/- (Rupees nine hundred thousand only) from the Plaintiff and to execute a sale deed duly registered in favour of the Plaintiff on the target date, i.e., November 01, 2001, which was written in the agreement before the Sub-Registrar, Lahore.

3.      That the Defendant failed to perform his part of the contract to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the Plaintiff by accepting the balance payment of the total consideration money by the Plaintiff despite many requests made in that behalf, but the Defendant miserably failed to do so whereas the Plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract.

4.      That a copy of the registered notice dated November 01, 2002, requesting the Defendant to deliver the possession of the house in question after payment of the full price from the Plaintiff and execute a registered instrument.

5.      That the Plaintiff has been left with no remedy except to institute the present suit against the Defendant.

6.      That the cause of action accrued in favour of the Plaintiff against the Defendant firstly on November 01, 2001, when the agreement to sell was struck between the parties and secondly on December 01, 2001, when the Defendant failed to execute a registered sale deed on the basis of the said agreement and to deliver the vacant possession of the demised property.

7.      That the disputed property is situated at Lahore, the parties also reside at Lahore and the agreement to sell was executed at Lahore, therefore, this Honorable Court has got the Jurisdiction to entertain and proceed this suit.

8.      That the value of the suit for the purpose of Court Fee and Jurisdiction has been fixed at Rs. 1,000,000/- (Rupees one million only) on which the maximum Court Fee worth Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) has been paid.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that a decree for possession through specific performance of the house, the description of which is detailed above may kindly be passed in favour of the Plaintiff against the Defendant with the payment of Rs. 900,000/- (Rupees nine hundred thousand only) payable as such by the Plaintiff in full and final satisfaction of the sale price with cost.

 

Plaintiff

through

Mustafa Qureshi

Advocate

Wahdat Road, Lahore

 

Verification: Verified at Lahore today the 8th day of January 2002, that the contents of Paragraphs 1 to 5 are correct and true in the best of my knowledge and the remaining Paragraphs from 6 to 8 are believed by me to be true and correct.

 

 

Plaintiffs Signature

(Parties names and original venue omitted)

SUIT FOR DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE ON THE BASIS OF KHULA

Respectfully Sheweth:---

1.            That the addresses of the parties have been adequately set out in the heading of the plaint and are sufficient for the purpose of any processes to be issued by this honour-able Court from time to time.

2.            That the plaintiff was wedded to the defendant in accordance with the tenets of Islam on April 24, 1998, in presence of two witnesses and in consideration of dower amounting to Rs. 40,000/- as per Nikah Nama which is still recoverable from the defendant. After the said marriage was solemnized the plaintiff went to defendant house Ghazi Abad, Multan to live with him over there to perform her conjugal rights.

3.            That out of this wedlock one kid namely Babar Ali was born on September 13, 1998, and is residing with the plaintiff.

4.            That soon after the marriage the attitude of the defendant and his family members were turned hostile, rude, insulting, and inhuman towards the plaintiff and by their cruel behavior they become habitual of insulting her parents and other relations besides inflicting regular mental torture on the plaintiff which made her life miserable and let creation of hated and aversion between the two spouses. Nevertheless, plaintiff always extended full cooperation, all submissiveness and fidelity not only to the defendant but also his family members. Plaintiff never derelicted from discharging her matrimonial responsibilities and obligations but there has been no positive change in the behavior and attitude of the defendant and his family members.

5.            That after a few weeks of the marriage, the situation went bad to worst on very trivial and petty matters of domestic life his family started humiliating the plaintiff and at the number of times, she was subjected to physical torture. The life of the plaintiff virtually made miserable and deplorable. The plaintiff never agitated lively against this grisly and gruesome conduct of the family members of the defendant.

6.            That on February 28, 1999, when the plaintiff was expecting a child, the defendant left the plaintiff to her parents house in Islamabad and did not come back just to avoid the expenditure of the delivery of child and he never sent her any kind of maintenance allowance or other expenditures and after the birth of a child neither the defendant asked the plaintiff to go with him nor he tried to reconcile with the plaintiff.

7.            That since that time, the plaintiff was constrained to live in her parents house throughout but the defendant or his family members have not made any sort of effort for reconciliation of the matter.

8.            That after passage of some reasonable time, the elders of the plaintiffs family sat together and made an effort for reconciliation between the parties.

9.            That the defendant has also badly failed and neglected to provide for the maintenance and to perform his marital obligations for the period stated herein above.

10.        That the adamant (firm) and cruel behavior of the defendant has created hatred between the parties and it is no longer possible to continue this hateful union.

11.        That the cause of action firstly accrued on the day when the defendant left the plaintiff to her parents house where she is still living and subsequently few days ago when the defendant refused to announce her divorce.

12.        That the cause of action accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of this honour-able Court and the plaintiff is residing with her parents in Islamabad, as such, this honour-able Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter.

13.        That for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction, it is fixed at Rs. 200/- and the requisite Court fee amounting to Rs. 15/- has been affixed thereon.

Under the circumstances, it is, therefore, very humbly and respectfully prayed that this honour-able Court may graciously be pleased to pass a decree of dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant. Any other relief, which this honour-able Court may deem just and proper including the cost throughout, may also be awarded.

 

 

Plaintiff

Through

 

 

Abdur Rehman Siddiqui

Advocate High Court

 

 

Miss Shireen Saeed

Advocate High Court

 

 

Miss Afsheen Manzoor Awan

Advocate High Court

5, Turner Road, Lahore

Verification: It is verified on oath at Islamabad on this 2nd day of June, 2001, that the contents of paragraph numbers 1 to 9 are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and the rest of the paragraphs are true to the information received by me.

Plaintiff

In the Court of Senior Civil Judge with powers of Judge Family Court, Lahore

1.      Mst. Faiza Khan D/o. Adbul Rehim, Caste Rajput, resident of 13 Bund Road, Lahore.

2.      Imran Khan S/o. Sattar Khan, Caste Rajput, resident of 98 Bund Road, Lahore.

Minor through Mst. Faiza Khan, Plaintiff No. 1 as next friend (Plaintiffs)

Versus

Sattar Khan S/o. Muhammad Ahmad, Caste Rajput, resident of 40 Jail Road, Lahore. (Defendant)

Suit for the recovery of Maintenance Allowance

Respectfully Sheweth:---

1.            That plaintiff no. 1 was married to the defendant at Lahore on March 07, 1996, in accordance with Muslim Rites. The marriage was duly registered under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. Out of this wedlock plaintiff no. 2 was born on June 07, 1997.

2.            That plaintiff no. 2 is a minor and is suing through plaintiff no. 1 who is his real mother and has got no adverse interest against the minor plaintiff.

3.            That some time after the marriage, the relation between the parties became strained. However, plaintiff no. 1 tolerated obnoxious (offensive) treatment meted out to plaintiff no. 1 at the hands of the defendant, so that their family life may have smooth sailing. The defendant did not care for that and continued his obnoxious treatment towards the plaintiff and eventually turned out the plaintiff from his house where after the plaintiff has been living with the parents of plaintiff no. 1.

4.            That the defendant has completely neglected plaintiffs and has completely failed to pay any maintenance allowance to them.

The defendant has no other liability except the liability of maintaining the plaintiffs. The defendant is an Engineer and his presently working as an executive engineer in the Irrigation Department of the Government of the Punjab and he is drawing salary Rs. 25,000/- per month.

5.            That plaintiff no. 1 is M. A. English and belongs to respectable family of Lahore enjoying very high social status. She claims a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month as her maintenance allowance. Plaintiff no. 2 claims a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month as his maintenance allowance.

6.            That the defendant was requested to pay the maintenance allowance to the plaintiff at the aforesaid rates but he was flatly refused to pay the same. Hence this suit.

7.            That the cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant as this refusal to pay the maintenance to the plaintiffs.

8.            That the parties reside at Lahore therefore, the family Court at Lahore have jurisdiction to try the present suit.

9.            That the prescribed Court fee of Rs. 15/- has been paid.

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that a decree for the past as well as future maintenance at the aforesaid rate may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendant with cost.

 

 

Plaintiff

Through

 

 

Counsel

Verification: Verified on oath at Lahore on this 1st day of February 1999, that the contents of paragraphs no. 1 to 6 of the plaint are true to the best of my knowledge and those of paragraph no. 7 to 9 are believed to be correct on information received therefrom.

Plaintiff

In the Court of Senior Civil Judge with powers of Judge Family Court, Lahore

1.      Mst. Faiza Khan D/o. Adbul Rehim, Caste Rajput, resident of 53 Bund Road, Lahore.

2.      Imran Khan S/o. Sattar Khan, Caste Rajput, resident of 91 Bund Road, Lahore.

Minor through Mst. Faiza Khan, Plaintiff No. 1 as next friend (Plaintiff)

Versus

Sattar Khan S/o. Muhammad Ahmed, Caste Rajput, resident of 40 Jail Road, Lahore. (Defendant)

Suit for the recovery of Maintenance Allowance

(Written Statement on the behalf of the Defendant)

Respectfully Sheweth:---

1.            The paragraph no. 1 of the plaint is admitted.

2.            The paragraph no. 2 is admitted.

3.            The paragraph no. 3 is incorrect hence it is denied. It is specially denied that the defendant expelled the plaintiff from his house. In fact, plaintiff no. 1 left the house of the defendant to attend the marriage of her cousin and took alongwith her entire jewelry. She also took away the jewelry of the sister of the defendant. She however, did not return despite all efforts on the part of the defendant to bring her back to his house.

4.            The paragraph no. 4 is incorrect hence it is denied. In fact, the defendant has been regularly paying the maintenance allowance to the plaintiffs and also giving them precious gifts despite the fact that plaintiff no. 1 remained absent and staying at the house of her parents without any just and lawful excuse. It is also denied that the defendant is earning a salary of Rs. 25,000/- pre month. In fact, he is drawing a salary of Rs. 10,000/- per month. The defendant has also to look after his old parents who are forlorn (solitary, alone).

5.            The paragraph no. 5 is denied. As plaintiff no. 1 is living separately from the defendant, she therefore is not entitled to any maintenance allowance. Needless to mention that defendant has been regularly paying maintenance to the plaintiffs out of sheer good will.

There was absolutely no occasion for the plaintiff to demand for maintenance.

6.            The paragraph no. 6 is denied. No cause of action has arisen to the plaintiffs against the defendant.

7.            Legal. Needs no reply.

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that a decree for the rejection of plaint for maintenance kindly be passed in favour of the defendant against the plaintiff with cost.

 

 

Defendant

Through

 

 

Counsel

Verification: Verified on oath at Lahore on this 1st day of March 1999 that the contents of paragraphs no. 1 to 5 of the written statement are true to the best of my knowledge and those of paragraph no. 6 to 7 are believed to be correct on information received therefrom.

Plaintiff

Petition under the Rent Restriction Ordinance

In the Court of Senior Civil Judge with powers of Rent Controller, Lahore

Hafiz Muhammad Hussain S/o. Ghulam Rasool, Caste Rajput, residence of Misri Shah, Lahore.

(Petitioner)

Versus

Nazir Ullah S/o. Abdullah Khan, Caste Sheikh, residence of House No. 4, Street No. 9, Akram Park, Lahore.

(Respondent)

Petition under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, for the ejectment of Respondent.

Respectfully Sheweth:---

The petitioner is the landlord of the House No. 4, Street No. 9, Akram Park, Lahore, and the respondent is the tenant in the said house under the petitioner.

The Rent Note was executed between the parties on the March 07, 1997. The rate of rent is payable in advance by the 10th of each month in accordance with the term of a Rent Note.

The premises under tenancy is bounded as under:---

North House of Miss Zara Sheikh

South Office of Madam Saadia Imam

East Munawar Veterinary Hospital

West .. Public Road

1.            That the demised premise has been shown in the red color in the site plan attached with his petition.

2.            That the respondent has failed to pay the monthly rent since November 1998, and assessed rent amounting to Rs. 12,000/- is still outstanding against him, despite repeated request and demands made by the petitioners in respect of either. As such, the respondent has become defaulter in the payment of rent and is liable to be ejected.

3.            That the petitioner require the demised premises for his personal bona-fide need as he was retired from Government Service and he has been served with notice for the vacation for official residence. The petitioner has no other property in the same urban area.

4.            That the respondent was requested to pay the arrears of rent and also to vacate the demised premises but he has flatly refused to do so. Hence this petition.

5.            That the cause of action arose in favour of the petitioner against the respondent in November 1998, when the respondent committed first default and it went on a subsequent default and lastly when he refused to vacate the demised premises.

6.            That the parties reside at Lahore, the demised premises are also situated at Lahore, therefore, the Rent Controller, Lahore has jurisdiction to try the present petition.

7.            That the prescribed Court fee of Rs. 15/- has been affixed on the petition.

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that an order for the ejectment of the respondent may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner against the respondent directing the respondent to hand-over vacant possession of the demised premises to the petitioner and cost of this petition be also awarded to the petitioner.

 

 

Petitioner

Through

 

 

Counsel

Verification: Verified on oath at Lahore on this 10th day of February 1999 that the contents of paragraphs no. 1 to 4 of the application are true to the best of my knowledge and those of paragraph no. 5 to 7 are believed to be correct on information received therefrom.

Petitioner

Written Statement of Ejectment Petition

In the Court of Mr. Zeeshan Munawar Nizam, Rent Controller, Lahore

Hafiz Muhammad Hussain S/o. Ghulam Rasool, Caste Rajput, residence of Misri Shah, Lahore.

(Petitioner)

Versus

Nazir Ullah S/o. Abdullah Khan, Caste Sheikh, residence of House No. 4, Street No. 9, Akram Park, Lahore.

(Respondent)

Petition under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, for the ejectment of Respondent.

Reply on the behalf of Respondent

Respectfully Sheweth:---

1.            Paragraph no. 1 of the petition is admitted.

2.            Paragraph no. 2 of the petition is absolutely incorrect. Hence it is denied. In fact, the petitioner had made an uncalled for demand for the increase of monthly rent from Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 6,000/-, which was refused by the respondent. Upon this, the petitioner got annoyed and he has made the present false petition against the respondent. The respondent is not at all defaulter and has paid upto date rent to the petitioner who does not issue receipt habitually.

3.            Paragraph no. 3 of the petition is incorrect, hence it is denied and traversed (barrier, obstruction). In fact, the present petition is mala-fide. The petitioner does not require the demised premises for his personal bona-fide need. The petitioner has another residential building available in the same urban area, which is lying vacant and is in possession of the petitioner and is quite suitable to his requirement.

4.            Paragraph no. 4 of the petition is incorrect. Hence it is denied as stated. There was absolutely no occasion for the petitioner to make any such demand as no thing was due from the respondent to the petitioner on account of monthly rent, nor did the petitioner require the premises under tenancy for his bona-fide personal need.

5.            Paragraph no 5 is incorrect, hence it is denied. No cause of action arisen to the petitioner against the respondent.

6.            Legal and needs no reply.

7.            Legal and needs no reply.

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the petition under reply may kindly be dismissed with cost.

 

 

Respondent

Through

 

 

Counsel

Verification: Verified on Oath at Lahore on this 12th day of February 1999 that the contents of paragraph no. 1 to 4 are true to the best of my knowledge and those of paragraph no. 5 to 7 are believed to be correct based on information received therefrom.

Respondent

In the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Lahore

Mirza Aftab Virk S/o. Muhammad Rizwan, Caste Cheema, resident of 18 Model Town, Lahore.

(Plaintiff)

Versus

1.      Abdul Shakoor S/o. Abdullah Khan, Caste Sheikh, residence of House No. 14, Street No. 19, Akram Park, Lahore (buyer).

2.      Jamal Abbasi S/o. Qadir Buksh, Caste Memon, resident of 13 Shadab Colony, Lahore (seller).

(Defendants)

Suit for possession of the agricultural land through pre-emption.

Respectfully Sheweth:---

1.      That the defendant no. 2 transacted the sale bargain of agricultural land belonging to him measuring into 10 Acres, 5 Kanals, and 20 Sarsai, bearing Khasra no. 581, 583, 851, and 852, Khatooni no. 23, Kheevat no. 9, and Jamabandi of the year 1994 to 1998, situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Sultanpura, Tehsil and District Lahore, through a duly registered and sale deed dated January 01, 2001, in consideration of the total sum of Rs. 500,000/- as value of the demised property but in order to defeat the right of pre-emption of the plaintiff, a fake price of Rs. 600,000/- was fixed as value of the land. A copy of the registered sale deed entered into between the defendant no. 1 & 2 is attached.

2.      That the plaintiff has superior right of pre-emption as compared to the defendant no. 1 being a real cousin of the defendant no. 1 and also a Pattidar being of owner of land adjacent to the area of land in dispute.

3.      That on knowledge of the sale bargain between the defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2 the plaintiff issued registered notice dated January 20, 2001, regarding the defendant no. 2 to accept the actual sale price and to deliver the possession of the land in question to the plaintiff. A copy of the registered notice and the postal registered receipt is enclosed.

4.      That the plaintiff has fulfilled all the requirements of Talab and the sale under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1990. The plaintiff, therefore, has a prima facie a favour-able right of pre-emption in his favour thus the present suit for possession through pre-emption.

5.      That the cause of action has arisen in favour of plaintiff against the defendants firstly on January 01, 2001, the date of registration between defendant no. 1 and 2, secondly a few days before since January 20, 2001, when in reply to which the plaintiff did receive no reply.

6.      That the property in dispute is situated within the precincts (region, ward, or area) of the Lahore district, therefore, this honour-able Court has got the jurisdiction to try this suit.

In the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Malik Allah Yar Khan, Sheikhupura

 

Mst. Razia Bibi D/o. Habib Ahmad

Caste Virk, resident of 9 Civil Lines, Sheikhupura.

Plaintiff

(Tenant)

Versus

 

Mst. Safia D/o. Muhammad Luqman, Caste Gujjar, resident of 10 A, Civil Lines, Sheikhupura.

Defendant

(Landlady)

Suit for permanent/perpetual injunction (ӿAe Y)

Respectfully Sheweth:---

1.      That the plaintiff above named was inducted as a tenant in the premises 9 Civil Lines, Sheikhupura, owned and possessed by the defendant through a mutually executed Rent Note with a monthly rental value of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) on 1st day of January, 2001. A copy of the Rent Note is attached.

2.      That the plaintiff continued to live peacefully and without any complaint of the terms and conditions of the Rent Note in the regular and usual course. (The plaintiff is continued to enjoy the premises in question peacefully and according to law and without any loss or injury).

3.      That the defendant in order to satisfy her ulterior (hidden, undisclosed, concealed) purpose to lease out premises in question to someone else to fetch (to obtain) better rent requested the plaintiff to vacate the premises in question as early as possible. On refusal of plaintiff the defendant above named started harassing and torturing the plaintiff by one way or the other. Very recently the defendant has tried in order to shackle the movements of the plaintiff and other family members to narrow down the passage for entry of the car by erecting a wall thus closing down the main gate and leaving only a passage of five feet for entry meant only for the member of the family.

4.      That the plaintiff has got no remedy except to institute the present suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from disturbing the peaceful use and occupation of the premises in question.

5.      That cause of action arose/accrued in favour of plaintiff against defendant only a few days before when she repeated her illegal demand to vacate the premises in question.

6.      That the property in dispute is situated at Sheikhupura and parties reside at Sheikhupura, therefore, this Honour-able Court has got the jurisdiction to entertain and try this suit.

7.      That value of subject matter for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction is fixed (ad voleram according to the value) at Rs. 200/- on which a Court fee of Rs. 15/- has been paid.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that a decree for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from creating any sort of disturbance in the faithful and lawful manner may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff against defendant.

 

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

through

Nizam-ud-Deen Toosi

Advocate

Shadman Road, Lahore

Verification: Verified on oath today the 25th day of January 2002 at Lahore. The contents of paragraphs from 1 to 4 are correct to the best of my knowledge and remaining paragraphs from 5 to 7 are believed by me to be true and correct.

Plaintiff

In the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Malik Allah Yar Khan, Sheikhupura

 

Mst. Razia Bibi D/o. Habib Ahmad

Caste Virk, resident of 9 Civil Lines, Sheikhupura.

Plaintiff

(Tenant)

Versus

 

Mst. Safia D/o. Muhammad Luqman, Caste Gujjar, resident of 10 A, Civil Lines, Sheikhupura.

Defendant

(Landlady)

Suit for permanent/perpetual injunction (ӿAe Y)

Written Statement on the behalf of defendant

Respectfully Sheweth:---

Preliminary Objections:---

1.      The suit is not maintainable in its present form before this Honour-able Court for the reason the plaintiff has not come with clean hands.

2.      The defendant has already filed an ejectment/eviction petition against the plaintiff, which is pending in the competent Court of Rent Controller, Sheikhupura, with respect to the same property, therefore, this Honour-able Court has not jurisdiction to entertain and to try the suit.

On facts:---

1.      The contents of paragraph number 1 are admitted to be corrected.

2.      The contents of paragraph number 2 of the plaint are true to the best of my knowledge and to the plaintiff. In this regard, answering defendant has to submit that the plaintiff/tenant has sub-let the premises in question without the consents of the defendant thus this contravening the terms and conditions of the Rent Note.

3.      The contents of paragraph number 3 are vehemently denied. Actually, so far as the erection of wall which resulted into the closure of the main gate thus shortening it was done at the request of the plaintiff himself made to the defendant which fact is further strengthened an account of the sale of the car during the intervening period.

4.      The plaintiff has no case or remedy available to him under any law and the answering defendant has adopted the appropriate remedy before the competent Court of the Rent Controller where the dispute is sub-judiced.

5.      No cause of action has arisen/accrued in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant.

6.      Legal.

Under the circumstances, it is therefore, respectfully prayed that the suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff against the defendant may please be dismissed with cost. The special costs under S. 35 A of Code of Civil Procedure may also awarded in favour of answering defendant against plaintiff.

In the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Ch. Fazl-e-Abbas, Lahore

 

Chaudhary Allah Rakha S/o. Chaudhary Allah Nawaz, Caste Janjua, resident of 15 D, Model Town, Lahore.

Plaintiff

Versus

 

Sheikh Rab Nawaz S/o. Sheikh Khuda Bakhsh, Caste Kamboh, 10 N, Garden Town, Lahore.

Defendant

Suit for damages for malicious prosecution

Respectfully Sheweth:---

1.      That the plaintiff is a respectable citizen and at the present serving as a Section Officer in Grade 18 in the Irrigation Department, Government of Punjab.

The plaintiff joined the Provincial Civil Service in 1990 through a competitive examination held by the Punjab Public Service Commission, Lahore.

2.      That the defendant above named belongs initially to the native village of the plaintiff and in connection with a sale bargain of the agricultural land owned and possessed by the plaintiff, the defendant during the sale bargain requested the plaintiff to sell the property to the defendant but plaintiff sold out the landed property to one of his near relative and out of which the defendant harbored a grudge/prejudice/rancor against the plaintiff.

3.      That in order to satisfy his malicious designs the defendant above named filed a false and baseless criminal complaint u/s 506 of Pakistan Penal Code in the Court of learned Magistrate, First Class, Lahore.

4.      That the Court summoned plaintiff from where he was bailed out. The proceedings in the Court continued till December 02, 2001, when the said learned Court acquitted the plaintiff. A copy of the judgement dated December 02, 2001 is attached.

5.      That in view of the malicious, mala-fide, and illegal act of the defendant, the plaintiff has suffered a pecuniary/money loss to the tune of Rs. 200,000/-, the detail for which is given hereunder:---

 

1.      Mental torture and loss of reputation

2.      Expenses incurred as such to pursue the case

3.      Transportation and entertainment

100,000

50,000

50,000

Grand Total:

200,000

6.      That the plaintiff has the right to claim a total amount of Rs. 200,000/-, from the defendant in lieu of the false, illegal, and immoral act of the defendant above named.

7.      That the plaintiff sent a registered notice to defendant requiring of him to make the payment of Rs. 200,000/- as damages but the defendant failed to do so.

8.      That the cause of action arose/accrued in favour of plaintiff against defendant on December 02, 2001, when the plaintiff was acquitted by the Court of criminal jurisdiction.

9.      That the parties reside at Lahore, therefore, this Honour-able Court has got the jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit.

10.  That value of subject matter for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction is fixed at Rs. 200,000/- on which a Court fee of Rs. 15,000/- has been paid.

Under the circumstances it is, therefore, respectfully prayed that a decree for the payment of Rs. 200,000/- as damages for malicious prosecution with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of the suit till its realization may kindly be passed in favour of plaintiff against defendant with cost.

 

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

through

Malik Jan Muhammad Abbasi

Advocate

Fane Road, Lahore

Verification: Verified on oath today the 2nd day of February 2002 at Lahore. The contents of paragraphs from 1 to 7 are correct to the best of my knowledge and remaining paragraphs from 8 to 10 are believed by me to be true and correct.

Plaintiff

In the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Rana Waseem Shazib, Quetta

 

Rana Aftab S/o. Munshi Abbas, Caste Malik, resident of 15 Satellite Town, Quetta.

Plaintiff

Versus

 

Waqas Anwar Ghumman S/o. Murtaza Khan Ghumman, Caste Jatt, 14 Gulberg, Quetta.

Defendant

Suit: For redemption of mortgage property

Respectfully Sheweth:---

1.      That the plaintiff/mortgagor above named executed a simple mortgage deed in favour of the defendant/mortgagee as security in lieu of a sum of Rs. 200,000/-(Rupees two hundred thousand only) taken as loan from the defendant/mortgagee dated 1st day January, 2001 in respect of the property detailed as under:---

North: Thoroughfare.

South: Office of Miss Shazia Manzoor, Advocate.

West: Clinic of Dr. Vaneeza Ahmed.

East: District Headquarter Hospital.

a copy of the mortgage deed dated 1st day of January, 2001 is attached.

2.      That the mortgage/debt money was payable after the expiry of one year as per the terms and conditions of the mortgage deed.

3.      That the plaintiff/mortgagor due to certain unavoidable circumstances could not make the payment of the mortgage debt within the time, therefore, the plaintiff/mortgagor requested the defendant/mortgagee to accept the total amount of the mortgage debt amounting to Rs. 200,000/- alongwith the interest in the month of February 2002, but he refused to accept the same and redeem the property to the pretext that after the expiry of target date the mortgage deed shall be treated as sale in favour of the defendant/mortgagee.

4.      That the pretext of the defendant/mortgagee not to receive the mortgage money and thus to refuse to redeem the property is against all cannons of law and justice for the simple reason that no such terms and conditions existed in the mortgage deed.

5.      That the plaintiff/mortgagor sent a registered notice dated February 20, 2002, to defendant/mortgagee to receive the mortgage debt, return the mortgage deed so that the property in question could be redeemed, but for no purpose defendant/mortgagee refused. A copy of the registered notice, alongwith the postal receipt is attached.

6.      That the plaintiff/mortgagor has been left with no remedy except to file the present suit against the defendant.

7.      That the cause of action arose against the defendant/mortgagee on 1st day of February 2002, and secondly when the defendant/mortgagee refused to receive the mortgage debt and to redeem the property.

8.      That the parties reside at Quetta and the mortgage property is also situated at Quetta, therefore, this Honour-able Court has got the jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit.

9.      That value of subject matter for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction is fixed (ad voleram according to the value) at Rs. 200,000/- on which a Court fee of Rs. 15,000/- has been paid.

Under the circumstances it is, therefore, respectfully prayed that a decree for the redemption of mortgage property, the detail of which is given above, may kindly be passed in favour of plaintiff/mortgagor against defendant/mortgagee with the payment of Rs. 200,000/- alongwith interest payable to the defendant/mortgagee as such.

 

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

through

Gul Sheer Khan

Advocate

Mosque Road, Quetta

Verification: Verified on oath today the 2nd day of February 2002 at Quetta. The contents of paragraphs from 1 to 6 are correct to the best of my knowledge and remaining paragraphs from 7 to 9 are believed by me to be true and correct.

Plaintiff

In the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Rana Munawar Ali Zeeshan, Karachi

 

Muhammad Sarosh Jaweed Butt S/o. Muhammad Akram, Caste Kashmiri, resident of 45 B, Johar Town, Karachi.

Plaintiff

Versus

 

 

Muhammad Aslam Saqi S/o. Mian Solat Raza, Caste Buttar, 55 North Nazim Abad, Karachi.

Defendant

Suit: for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts

Respectfully Sheweth:---

1.      That the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a partnership business with the investment of a total sum of rupees to the tune of one million as capital of the partnership firm borne out by the respective partners in equal shares in connection with the business of imports and exports of the textile machinery and equipment under the name of Zeeshan Brothers having its Head Office at 71 Jail Road, Karachi. A copy of the partnership deed is enclosed.

2.      That in accordance to the terms and conditions of the partnership deed executed between the parties. The defendant was bound to maintain the records including the ledgers, invoices, receipts etc. and in that connection to maintain properly all that records with due care and attention in the regular and usual course of business. Whereas the defendant above named was made responsible to make all those purchases in connection with the partnership business. It was also agreed upon between the partners that the plaintiff shall receive a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month in lieu of the services rendered by him to maintain the records.

3.      That two months before the plaintiff had to go abroad in connection with his medical treatment at a London based hospital. On return of plaintiff it was a matter of grave concern for the plaintiff to see partnership business on declined. On the plaintiffs queries from the defendant, he could not give any proper explanation as to the vehicle meant for the partnership business and other missing articles of furniture etc. Not only the defendant points blankly but openly refuses to produce the records of the partnership business for the necessary examination and inspection of the records.

4.      That the plaintiff has been left with no remedy except to institute the present suit for the dissolution of partnership agreement and rendition of accounts in this honour-able Court, hence the suit.

5.      That the cause of action arose in favour of plaintiff against the defendant on few days before when he miserably failed to render the accounts or give the proper accounts.

6.      That the partnership business is carried out at 71 Jail Road, Karachi, at its Head Office and that the parties also reside at Karachi, therefore, this honour-able Court has got the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit/to try the suit.

7.      That value of subject matter for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction is fixed at Rs. 200/- tentatively on which a requisite Court fee of Rs. 15/- has been paid and that the Court fee shall be made good at the time of the final adjudication and decree passed by this honour-able Court.

Under the circumstances it is, therefore, respectfully prayed that a receiver may be appointed to take stocks of the entire record of the partnership business, finalize the accounts and on the basis of that this honour-able Court may kindly pass a decree in favour of plaintiff against the defendant for dissolution of partnership business and the rate-able amount payable to the parties strictly in accordance with their shares and liabilities with costs.

 

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

through

Mirza Kaleem Baig

Advocate

Sahi Road, Karachi

Verification: Verified on oath today the 28th day of February 2002 at Karachi. The contents of paragraphs from 1 to 4 are correct to the best of my knowledge and remaining paragraphs from 5 to 7 are believed by me to be true and correct.

Plaintiff

In the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Multan

Muhammad Afzal Khan S/o. Noor Din, Caste Chattha, resident of House No. 5, Street No. 5, Gulgasht Colony, Multan.

(Plaintiff)

Versus

Muhammad Maqsood Khan S/o. Noor Din, Caste Chattha, resident of Block B, Haram Gate, Multan.

(Defendant)

Suit: For declaration and cancellation of registered deed of Hiba (gift) dated 03-01-2001 that the property in question was never gifted away by the father of the plaintiff to the defendant and the same is void ab-initio qua (in the capacity of, as) the rights of the plaintiff.

Respectfully Sheweth:---

1.      That the plaintiff and the defendant are the real brothers of the deceased who died on 03-02-1999 leaving behind plaintiff and the defendant as his sole heirs and survivors.

2.      That the deceased of the follows of the parties owned and possessed agricultural land measuring into 12 acres bearing Khasra Nos. 509, 510, and 514, Khatooni No. 9, Kheevat No. 10, situated in the revenue estate of Village Sultan Pura, Tehsil Kabir Wala, District Multan. The said property was an ancestral property liable to be apportioned to all the legal heirs by operation of law only after the death of the deceased father of the parties.

3.      That the defendant by taking the fullest advantage of the father of the parties who had since become a feeble and frail minded person due to his cinelity and was also suffering from forgetfulness/dementia got executed a registered Hiba Nama (Gift Deed) of the property detailed above without the consents of the plaintiff in a fraudulent and hidden (incomplete).

In the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Lahore

In re:

Asrar Alam S/o. Badruddin Jan versus Dabir Malik S/o. Ehsan Elahi and others

SUIT FOR DECLARATION, INJUNCTION, PARTITION, AND POSSESSION

Compromise under Order XXIII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure

The parties to the above titled suit have reached a compromise on the following terms:---

1.      The defendants have offered a sum of Rs. 6,000/- (Rupees six thousand only) and the library/law books alongwith the wooden cupboards containing them belonging to Asrar Alam S/o. Badruddin in satisfaction of the plaintiffs claim contained in the suit.

2.      The plaintiff accepts the aforementioned offer as full and final settlement of his claim set out in the plaint in the above titled suit.

3.      The plaintiff has received the said amount of Rs. 6,000/- (Rupees six thousand only) through a pay order no. AB 5629548, dated April 04, 2002, drawn on Habib Bank Limited, towards the full and final settlement of his claim in the suit and the plaintiff shall not re-agitate the matter in the suit in any forum whatsoever.

4.      The parties hereto shall bear their respective costs.

5.      The parties to the suit pray that a decree be passed in terms of this compromise.

 

Plaintiff

 

Defendants

 

 

 

Through

 

 

 

Ghazi Aminullah Khan Gardezi

In the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Lahore

Abdul Ghaffar S/o. Qadir Ali, Caste Bhutta, resident of House No. 13, Street No. 19, Misri Shah, Lahore

(Plaintiff Legal Heir or Third Party neither Donor nor Donee)

Versus

Muhammad Rashid S/o. Ghulam Nabi, Caste Gondal, resident of Block C-II, Township, Lahore.

(Defendant Donee)

Suit: For a declaration (Y iAjNmA AjI ̧e) that the gift deed dated March 11, 2001, is void ab initio, inoperative, and ultra vires the plaintiffs rights.

Respectfully Sheweth:---

1.      That the father of the plaintiff named Ghulam Dastgeer Khan passed away on 09.07.2001, at the age of ninety (90) years leaving behind the present plaintiff as his sole survivor/heir.

2.      That the plaintiff is the sole heir to the property left by the above named deceased father to be inherited by him. The deceased father owned agricultural land measuring into four kanals and seven marlas and a pacca built house situated in the vicinity of Civil Lines, Sheikhupura, bearing House No. 29, Street No. 113, Ferozewala, Sheikhupura.

3.      That after the death of the plaintiffs deceased father, the plaintiff attended the office of Revenue authorities and was surprised and shocked to know that the part of the said property regarding the agricultural land described above stood transferred in favour of the defendant through a registered deed of bearing no. 97/95, dated November 11, 2001, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Sheikhupura, in the absence of the plaintiff and without his knowledge.

4.      That in fact the said alienation in favour of the defendant is based on fraud and through deceitful means at the instance of defendant. It is submitted that the plaintiffs deceased father due to his old age had lost the balance of mind and was feeble minded. The plaintiffs father died after a protracted (prolonged) illness during the time he was suffering from dementia (forgetfulness, irrationality, lunacy) and during the last days of life he was complete paroxysm (tremor). The medical receipts highlights the disease of the deceased father from the concerned specialist in medicine, are attached.

5.      That the defendant taking the full advantages of the deceased fathers old age and sickness got executed a registered deed of gift in his favour on the bases of some pretence (dishonesty, fake) of the kind and got his signatures affixed.

6.      That the registered gift deed dated November 11, 2001, alleged to be executed in favour of defendant as such is based upon fraud, misrepresentation, and procured through deceitful means, therefore, having no legal or lawful force qua the plaintiffs vested right of inheritance, hence the suit.

7.      That cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant firstly on 04.04.2001 and secondly a few days before when the plaintiff came to knowledge about the execution of the alleged gift deed in favour of the defendant.

8.      That the parties reside in Sheikhupura District and the property in dispute is also situated within the jurisdiction of the Honour-able Court, therefore, this Honour-able Court has the jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit.

9.      The value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction is fixed at Rs. 1,000,000/- (Rupees one million only) amount to its market rate in the area on which the requisite Court fee of Rs. 15,000/- has been paid.

Under the circumstances it is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the decree for a declaration and cancellation of the deed of gift registered in the office of Sub-Registrar in favour of plaintiff vide baring no. 40/47 and in furtherance of that mutation as such having taken place in favour of the plaintiff may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant with cost throughout.

In the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Lahore

Moazzam Mughal S/o. Muhammad Azam, Caste Lashari, resident of House No. 34, Haider Street No. 23, Awan Colony, Lahore

(Plaintiff)

Versus

M/s. Punjab Cooperative Bank Limited through its Chairman

(Defendant)

Suit: For the recovery of Rs. 608,000/- as damages for wrongful dismissal.

Respectfully Sheweth:---

1.      That the plaintiff joined services as an Assistant with the defendant bank on 01-01-1980 and it was agreed between the plaintiff and defendant that plaintiff shall be on probation for a period of one year liable to be confirmed on the expiry of one year and it was also provided in the appointment letter that plaintiff shall serve the organization till he attains superannuation (retirement).

2.      That the plaintiff served the defendant bank to the best of his ability, honesty, to the complete satisfaction of his superiors, and that without complaint or stigma throughout of career/service. The dossier (ready reference list) of the plaintiff is self-explanatory. It was due to the sheer dint of hard work of the plaintiff that he was promoted in the regular and usual course and lastly he was working as Manager of the defendant bank.

3.      That to the misfortune of the plaintiff he suffered from a heart attack on 02-10-1997 and he was admitted in the hospital. As there was no male member of the family present in the house, he could not inform the defendant for a medical leave. After two days when plaintiff got consciousness, he sent a registered application requiring of the defendant for a medical leave. A copy of the application with the postal receipt is attached.

4.      That when on 12-10-1997 when the plaintiff joined the office, he was informed that his services were terminated due to absence from duty vide office order dated 03-10-1997.

5.      That the plaintiff made a representation to the competent authority to consider his case for reinstatement on account of the peculiar circumstances, but the same was rejected.

6.      That the act of the defendant to terminate the services of the plaintiff is illegal, void, and inoperative as the defendant and the Efficiency and Disciplinary Rules, 1975 which were borrowed the defendant from Civil Service Laws.

7.      That the plaintiff has no remedy except to file a suit for damages for wrongful termination/dismissal and he has evaluated the damages as under:---

 

 

a)         Mental torture

b)         Salary with allowances for the un-expired period of service @ Rs. 15,500/- p. m. salary last withdrawn (36 x 15,500/-)

50,000.00

558,000.00

 

 

 

608,000.00

 

8.      Cause of Action

9.      Jurisdiction

10.  Court fee

Pray ...

In the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Lahore

 

Qazi Zahid Ali S/o. Bashir Ahmed, Caste Syed, resident of 3 Shah Jamal, Lahore.

Versus

1.      The Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Railway, Islamabad.

2.      Pakistan Railways through The General Manager Railways, Headquarters, Lahore.

Plaintiff

Defendants

Suit: For the recovery of Rs. 203,000/- (Rupees two hundred three thousands only) for non-delivery of goods consigned under Risk Note No. 10, Lahore, dated 1st of January 2002..

Respectfully Sheweth:---

1.      That on 01.01.2002, the Plaintiff handed over 300 bags of wheat, each containing, two maunds of wheat to the servants and clerks of the Defendant at Lahore for despatch to Gujrat on the Pakistan Railway owned and managed by the Defendant Federation for delivery there, to the Plaintiff or his order.

2.      That the servants of the Defendant accepted the consignment for the aforesaid purpose on the Plaintiffs executing consignment in risk note no. 10, dated 01.01.2002 and on the Plaintiffs paying the railway freight and on accepting the goods for transit the Railway employee granted the Plaintiffs receipt number 483 of even date.

3.      That when the consignment reached at Gujrat, it was found short by 100 bags and the Railway employees gave delivery of the remaining bags to the Plaintiffs agent at Gujrat.

4.      That the loss of the said 100 bags was due to the misconduct of the Railway Servants.

5.      That the Plaintiff reliably understands that the doors of the Wagon in which the 300 bags were loaded at Lahore and in which they were brought direct to Gujrat were not properly sealed. While the train was standing at Wazirabad Junction at night the said 100 bags were taken out through the doors on the off side of the platform by some miscreants (criminals), possibly Railway employees and peons performing watch and ward duties.

6.      That the loss of the said 100 bags was due to the misconduct or gross negligence of the Railway servants. The Plaintiff at present is unable to give particulars of the said misconduct but it is transparent that the loss sustained by the Plaintiff is solely due to the negligence of the Railway Authority. (Res ipsa loquitur is applicable in this case).

7.      That the Plaintiff has suffered damage by the non-delivery of 100 bags of wheat as follows:---

a)      Price of 200 maunds of wheat @ Rs. 300/- per maund 100,000/-

b)      Price of 100 gunny bags @ Rs. 30/- per bag 3,000/-

Total: 203,000/-

8.      That the notice of claim as required by S. 80 of Code of Civil Procedure under the Railway Act has been served on the Defendant No. 2 by registered post, copies of which are attached.

9.      That as goods were consigned at Lahore and the Risk Note was also obtained there, the Civil Court at Lahore has jurisdiction to try the suit.

10.  That the Cause of Action arisen at Lahore on January 01, 2002, and later on when the period of two months expired.

11.  That the value of the subject matter of the suit for the purpose of Court Fee and Jurisdiction is fixed at Rs. 203,000/- on which requisite Court fees of Rs. 15,000/- has been paid.

It is therefore prayed that a decree, for Rs. 203,000/- with interest @ 10% from the date of suit till its realization, may kindly be passed in favour of the Plaintiff against the Defendant with cost.

Verification: ..

In the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Lahore

 

Akhtar Nawazish S/o. Nabi Bukish, Caste Mirza, resident of 5 Shah Jamal, Lahore.

Versus

Nohman Rizvi S/o. Israr Elahi, Caste Naushahi, resident of House No. 18, Street No. 2, Gulberg II, Lahore.

Plaintiff (Vendee)

Defendant (Vendor)

Suit: For the Cancellation of agreement dated March 01, 2002, entered into between plaintiff and defendant to sell the house.

Respectfully Sheweth:---

1.      That the plaintiff and the defendant mutually entered into an agreement to sell the house owned and possessed by the defendant above named situated and bounded as under:---

a)      South Property Film Star Zara Sheikh

b)      East .. Thoroughfare (free way, main road)

c)      North .. House belonging to S. P. Usman Saleemi

d)     East . Clinic of Dr. Azmat Hayat Gill

A copy of the said agreement is attached.

2.      That as per the terms and conditions of the agreement the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs. 100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) as earnest money out of the total sale price to the tune of Rs. 1,000,000/- (Rupees one million only) as mutually agreed between the parties in the agreement.

3.      That the agreement was to be completed through the execution of a registered sale deed before the Sub-Registrar, Lahore, on or before the 30th day of June 2002, as laid down in the agreement.

4.      That the defendant had asseverated (declared, stated) at the time of the execution of the said agreement that the house in question was free from any sort of embargo or encumbrance and was in possession of the defendant. But, later on, on the plaintiff detailed inquiry as a matter of abundant (liberal, fruitful) caution and care, it came to light that the property in question was mortgaged by the defendant to one Muhammad Khurram S/o. Akmal Hussain, Caste Chaudhary, resident of Kacha Rawan Road, Lahore, in lieu of loan taken by the defendant from the said Muhammad Ali who was also given the possession as it was a mortgage with possession.

5.      That the defendant through surreptitiously (secretly) and furtively did form the mortgage with mala-fide intention and intentionally hide the fact of said mortgage/the transaction of mortgage of the property in question executed by him as such. The defendant, therefore, misrepresented and in order to takes the money from the plaintiff entered into an agreement concealing thereby the exact legal title of the property. The plaintiff thus has been left no remedy at law except to institute the present suit.

6.      That the Cause of Action arose in favour of the plaintiff against defendant on March 01, 2002, when he received a sum of Rs. 100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) from the plaintiff as earnest money out of the total sale consideration of Rs. 1,000,000/- (Rupees one million only)

7.      That the property in dispute is situated at Lahore, the earnest money was also paid to the defendant at Lahore, therefore, this Honour-able Court has got the jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit.

8.      That the value of the suit for the purposes of the Court fee and jurisdiction is fixed at Rs. 100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) on which the requisite Court fee of Rs. 7,500/- has been paid.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed as that a decree for the payment of Rs. 100,000/- as earnest money received by the defendant from the plaintiff as earnest money of the sale transaction in the light of the agreement dated March 01, 2002, with interest @ 10% p. a. from the date of institution of the suit till its realization may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant with a further prayer that the agreement dated March 01, 2002, may kindly be declared to be treated as cancelled and unlawful, inoperative, and void as against the plaintiffs rights.

Back | Next

Go to Index | LL. B. I | LL. B. II | Laws | Home