Shaukat Ali
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Shaukat Ali as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 1,515
- Pages: 8
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE, MULTAN.
In re: Shaukat Ali
Vs.
Province of Punjab etc.
Written Statement on behalf of defendants No. 11 to 13. PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS: 1.
That the plaintiff has no cause of action to file this suit, so the suit is liable to be dismissed under the law.
2.
That the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit in hand, hence, no relief can be granted; and the suit is liable to be dismissed.
3.
That the suit is liable to be dismissed under the maxim “Law is with the vigilant not with indolent”.
4.
That the suit is liable to be dismissed as badly time barred.
5.
That this court is lacking the jurisdiction to try the suit.
6.
That after the repeal of Evacuee Laws in 1975, the transfer of disputed property made in favour of predecessors-in-interest of the answering defendants by Settlement Authorities, cannot be challenged under the law. The plaintiff’s suit merits dismissal.
7.
That there was no “pending proceedings” as visualised by law at the time of repeal of Evacuee Laws. Defendants No. 1 to 3, therefore, lack jurisdiction/authority to re-open the case of transfer of the disputed property, finalized more than quarter to a century ago and the suit seeking relief in this behalf is not maintainable.
8.
That the suit is an outcome of collusive-ness between the plaintiff and defendants No. 15 & 16. No equitable relief can be granted to the plaintiff, in these circumstances.
9.
That the plaint has been intentionally under-stamped and cannot be treated to be a plaint in the eye of law so as to proceed with further.
10.
That the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief under the “law of Estoppel”.
11.
That the suit is against the law and facts, hence, liable to be dismissed.
12.
That the answering defendants are entitled for the special compensation U/s-35-A C.P.C.
ON FACTS: 1.
That the answering defendants have no knowledge about the partition of property. However, the answering defendants purchased the property No. 270/W-3.
2.
That the contents of para No. 2 are denied. It is absolutely incorrect that the plaintiff submitted a settlement form at any point of time seeking transfer of the disputed property. Rest of the para is denied for lack of knowledge. The plaintiff be asked to prove the same.
3.
That he contents of para No. 3 are incorrect. It is denied that defendant No. 4 secured transfer of shops, referred to in this paragraph, through suppression of material facts. However, as per record produced by plaintiff, the defendant No. 4 was in possession at the time of allotment. Rest of the paragraph is denied for lack of knowledge and the plaintiff be asked to prove the same.
4.
That the factum of institution of appeal by defendant No. 14 is not denied. It is correct that the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 14.9.1960 treated the property under reference to consist of two units and passed orders for transfer thereof.
5.
That the contents of para No. 5 are denied. It is absolutely incorrect that the alleged settlement form bearing No. 254 dated 7.7.1959 was available in the record of defendant No. 2. The question of disposal of the said form prior to the transfer of the disputed property therefore, did not arise. Contents of the rest of the paragraph are mere embellishment and nothing but mis-statement of facts.
6.
That the contents of para No. 6 are denied. It is not correct that the plaintiff learnt about transfer of the property few days prior to the institution of the suit. He had, ever since its transfer remained posted with the knowledge of transfer thereof. It is correct that shop No. 270/W-3 was alienated in favour of defendant No. 5, who further transferred the same through registered deed dated 10.12.1963 in favour of defendant No. 6 and lastly defendant No. 6 sold the same to defendants No. 7 to 13 on 10.12.1973.
7.
That para No. 7 is denied in total as being wholly incorrect. The plaintiff had never remained in possession of the disputed property either directly or through Rana Dildar Ahamd. Therefore, the question of his handing over its temporary possession to defendants No. 15 & 16 for use did not arise. It is also incorrect that defendant No. 14 also obtained possession in similar fashion. It is also incorrect that the plaintiff was ever assured that the possession would be handed over (to him) on demand.
8.
That the para No. 8 is not correct and denied as being incorrect. The sale deeds referred to in para 6 ibid are valid in all respects.
9.
That para No. 9 is not correct. It is absolutely incorrect that the plaintiff came to know about the transfer of the disputed property only when he allegedly made demand for delivery of possession from defendants No. 14 to 16.
10.
That para No. 10 is not correct. The alleged facts in this paragraph are mere repetition of earlier paragraph. These are however denied as being wholly incorrect.
11.
That the contents of para No. 11 are not correct. The plaintiff was never seized of locus standi as he was not an applicant for its transfer. The question of his asking defendants No. 1 to 3 to take steps for transfer of the disputed property in his favour did not arise.
12.
That the contents of para No. 12 are denied as being incorrect. The plaintiff has no right to claim that the defendants be restrained from either alienating the suit property or making any alteration or change therein.
13.
That the contents of para No. 13 are not correct. No cause of action ever accrued to the plaintiff.
14.
That para No. 14 is admitted to the extent as regards the residences of the parties. However, this court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate this lis.
15.
That the contents of para No. 15 are incorrect. The plaint has been intentionally under stamped. The plaintiff be asked to make up the deficiency, in accordance with law. For the reasons foregoing, it is most respectfully prayed that the suit being misconceived and malafide may be dismissed with special costs. Defendants,
Dated: _______ Through: Sh. Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. Verification: Verified on oath at Multan this the ____ day of July 2001 that the contents of preliminary objections as well as para No. 1 to 12 on facts are correct to the best of my knowledge and the remaining paras are true to the best of my belief and nothing material has been concealed therein. Defendants
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE, MULTAN.
In re: Shaukat Ali
Vs.
Province of Punjab etc.
STAY APPLICATION. Written Statement on behalf of defendants No. 11 to 13. PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS: 1. That the applicant has no cause of action to file this suit, so the suit is liable to be dismissed under the law. 2. That the applicant has no locus standi to file the suit in hand, hence, no relief can be granted; and the suit is liable to be dismissed. 3. That the application is liable to be dismissed under the maxim “Law is with the vigilant not with indolent”. 4. That as the application is liable to be dismissed as badly time barred, so the application is not maintainable. 5. That this court is lacking the jurisdiction to try the application, so the application is not maintainable. ON FACTS: 1.
That the para No. 1 needs no reply.
2.
That the para No. 2 needs no reply being legal.
3.
That the contents of para No. 3 are denied. The answering respondents are owners of suit property and going to alienate in favour of some other.
4.
That the contents of the para are denied. The applicant has no right in respect of suit property, so there arises no question of irreparable loss to the applicant.
5.
That the contents of the para No. 5 are denied. Neither the applicant has ownership nor possession of the suit property, so balance of convenience does not fall in the favour of the applicant.
6.
That the para relates with the discretion of this Hon’ble Court. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that that application in hand may please be dismissed with cost. Respondents,
Dated: ________
Through: Sh. Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan.
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE, MULTAN.
In re: Shaukat Ali
Vs.
Province of Punjab etc.
STAY APPLICATION. Written Statement on behalf of defendants No. 11 to 13. AFFIDAVIT of: Farooq Ahmad Sheikh S/o Sarfraz Ahmad, caste Sheikh, R/o 106 Bohar Gate, Multan.
I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the above-mentioned application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept concealed thereto. DEPONENT
Verification: Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day of July 2001 that the contents of this affidavit are true & correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. DEPONENT
In re: Shaukat Ali
Vs.
Province of Punjab etc.
Written Statement on behalf of defendants No. 11 to 13. PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS: 1.
That the plaintiff has no cause of action to file this suit, so the suit is liable to be dismissed under the law.
2.
That the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit in hand, hence, no relief can be granted; and the suit is liable to be dismissed.
3.
That the suit is liable to be dismissed under the maxim “Law is with the vigilant not with indolent”.
4.
That the suit is liable to be dismissed as badly time barred.
5.
That this court is lacking the jurisdiction to try the suit.
6.
That after the repeal of Evacuee Laws in 1975, the transfer of disputed property made in favour of predecessors-in-interest of the answering defendants by Settlement Authorities, cannot be challenged under the law. The plaintiff’s suit merits dismissal.
7.
That there was no “pending proceedings” as visualised by law at the time of repeal of Evacuee Laws. Defendants No. 1 to 3, therefore, lack jurisdiction/authority to re-open the case of transfer of the disputed property, finalized more than quarter to a century ago and the suit seeking relief in this behalf is not maintainable.
8.
That the suit is an outcome of collusive-ness between the plaintiff and defendants No. 15 & 16. No equitable relief can be granted to the plaintiff, in these circumstances.
9.
That the plaint has been intentionally under-stamped and cannot be treated to be a plaint in the eye of law so as to proceed with further.
10.
That the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief under the “law of Estoppel”.
11.
That the suit is against the law and facts, hence, liable to be dismissed.
12.
That the answering defendants are entitled for the special compensation U/s-35-A C.P.C.
ON FACTS: 1.
That the answering defendants have no knowledge about the partition of property. However, the answering defendants purchased the property No. 270/W-3.
2.
That the contents of para No. 2 are denied. It is absolutely incorrect that the plaintiff submitted a settlement form at any point of time seeking transfer of the disputed property. Rest of the para is denied for lack of knowledge. The plaintiff be asked to prove the same.
3.
That he contents of para No. 3 are incorrect. It is denied that defendant No. 4 secured transfer of shops, referred to in this paragraph, through suppression of material facts. However, as per record produced by plaintiff, the defendant No. 4 was in possession at the time of allotment. Rest of the paragraph is denied for lack of knowledge and the plaintiff be asked to prove the same.
4.
That the factum of institution of appeal by defendant No. 14 is not denied. It is correct that the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 14.9.1960 treated the property under reference to consist of two units and passed orders for transfer thereof.
5.
That the contents of para No. 5 are denied. It is absolutely incorrect that the alleged settlement form bearing No. 254 dated 7.7.1959 was available in the record of defendant No. 2. The question of disposal of the said form prior to the transfer of the disputed property therefore, did not arise. Contents of the rest of the paragraph are mere embellishment and nothing but mis-statement of facts.
6.
That the contents of para No. 6 are denied. It is not correct that the plaintiff learnt about transfer of the property few days prior to the institution of the suit. He had, ever since its transfer remained posted with the knowledge of transfer thereof. It is correct that shop No. 270/W-3 was alienated in favour of defendant No. 5, who further transferred the same through registered deed dated 10.12.1963 in favour of defendant No. 6 and lastly defendant No. 6 sold the same to defendants No. 7 to 13 on 10.12.1973.
7.
That para No. 7 is denied in total as being wholly incorrect. The plaintiff had never remained in possession of the disputed property either directly or through Rana Dildar Ahamd. Therefore, the question of his handing over its temporary possession to defendants No. 15 & 16 for use did not arise. It is also incorrect that defendant No. 14 also obtained possession in similar fashion. It is also incorrect that the plaintiff was ever assured that the possession would be handed over (to him) on demand.
8.
That the para No. 8 is not correct and denied as being incorrect. The sale deeds referred to in para 6 ibid are valid in all respects.
9.
That para No. 9 is not correct. It is absolutely incorrect that the plaintiff came to know about the transfer of the disputed property only when he allegedly made demand for delivery of possession from defendants No. 14 to 16.
10.
That para No. 10 is not correct. The alleged facts in this paragraph are mere repetition of earlier paragraph. These are however denied as being wholly incorrect.
11.
That the contents of para No. 11 are not correct. The plaintiff was never seized of locus standi as he was not an applicant for its transfer. The question of his asking defendants No. 1 to 3 to take steps for transfer of the disputed property in his favour did not arise.
12.
That the contents of para No. 12 are denied as being incorrect. The plaintiff has no right to claim that the defendants be restrained from either alienating the suit property or making any alteration or change therein.
13.
That the contents of para No. 13 are not correct. No cause of action ever accrued to the plaintiff.
14.
That para No. 14 is admitted to the extent as regards the residences of the parties. However, this court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate this lis.
15.
That the contents of para No. 15 are incorrect. The plaint has been intentionally under stamped. The plaintiff be asked to make up the deficiency, in accordance with law. For the reasons foregoing, it is most respectfully prayed that the suit being misconceived and malafide may be dismissed with special costs. Defendants,
Dated: _______ Through: Sh. Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. Verification: Verified on oath at Multan this the ____ day of July 2001 that the contents of preliminary objections as well as para No. 1 to 12 on facts are correct to the best of my knowledge and the remaining paras are true to the best of my belief and nothing material has been concealed therein. Defendants
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE, MULTAN.
In re: Shaukat Ali
Vs.
Province of Punjab etc.
STAY APPLICATION. Written Statement on behalf of defendants No. 11 to 13. PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS: 1. That the applicant has no cause of action to file this suit, so the suit is liable to be dismissed under the law. 2. That the applicant has no locus standi to file the suit in hand, hence, no relief can be granted; and the suit is liable to be dismissed. 3. That the application is liable to be dismissed under the maxim “Law is with the vigilant not with indolent”. 4. That as the application is liable to be dismissed as badly time barred, so the application is not maintainable. 5. That this court is lacking the jurisdiction to try the application, so the application is not maintainable. ON FACTS: 1.
That the para No. 1 needs no reply.
2.
That the para No. 2 needs no reply being legal.
3.
That the contents of para No. 3 are denied. The answering respondents are owners of suit property and going to alienate in favour of some other.
4.
That the contents of the para are denied. The applicant has no right in respect of suit property, so there arises no question of irreparable loss to the applicant.
5.
That the contents of the para No. 5 are denied. Neither the applicant has ownership nor possession of the suit property, so balance of convenience does not fall in the favour of the applicant.
6.
That the para relates with the discretion of this Hon’ble Court. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that that application in hand may please be dismissed with cost. Respondents,
Dated: ________
Through: Sh. Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan.
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE, MULTAN.
In re: Shaukat Ali
Vs.
Province of Punjab etc.
STAY APPLICATION. Written Statement on behalf of defendants No. 11 to 13. AFFIDAVIT of: Farooq Ahmad Sheikh S/o Sarfraz Ahmad, caste Sheikh, R/o 106 Bohar Gate, Multan.
I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the above-mentioned application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept concealed thereto. DEPONENT
Verification: Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day of July 2001 that the contents of this affidavit are true & correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. DEPONENT
Related Documents
Shaukat Ali
November 2019 11
Shaukat Ali 7, 11
November 2019 36
Interview With Shaukat Tareen
May 2020 18
Ali Ali
June 2020 41
Ali
November 2019 55