Shaukat Ali

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 re:
STAY APPLICATION.
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 re:
STAY APPLICATION.
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

Shaukat Ali

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Shaukat Ali

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Shaukat Ali

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE, MULTAN.

Written Statement on behalf of defendants No. 11 to 13.

3. That the suit is liable to be dismissed under the maxim “Law

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

7. That there was no “pending proceedings” as visualised by law

9. That the plaint has been intentionally under-stamped and

2. That the contents of para No. 2 are denied. It is absolutely

3. That he contents of para No. 3 are incorrect. It is denied that

4. That the factum of institution of appeal by defendant No. 14 is

6. That the contents of para No. 6 are denied. It is not correct

7. That para No. 7 is denied in total as being wholly incorrect.

8. That the para No. 8 is not correct and denied as being

9. That para No. 9 is not correct. It is absolutely incorrect that

14. That para No. 14 is admitted to the extent as regards the

For the reasons foregoing, it is most respectfully

3. That the application is liable to be dismissed under the maxim

4. That as the application is liable to be dismissed as badly time

5. That this court is lacking the jurisdiction to try the application, so

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

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that that

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE, MULTAN.

I, the above named deponent do hereby

You might also like