IN THE COURT OF Humaira Afzal CIVIL JUDGE 1st Class
ISLAMABAD (WEST)
Chaudhary Muhammad Afzal VERSUS Muhammad Ashraf Etc.
SUIT FOR SEPARATE POSSESSION THROUGH PARTITION RECOVERY OF
COMPENSATION FOR USE AND OCCUPATION AND
PERMANENT INJUNCTION
WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT NO.1
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS: -
• That the suit is false, frivolous, vexatious, bogus, not maintainable,
barred by law and liable to be dismissed with costs.
• That the plaintiff did not come in this court with clean hands, he file the
instant suit just to blackmail and harass the Answering Defendant No.1.
• That the suit of the Plaintiff is not properly valued, which also does not
disclose any cause of action against the Answering Defendant and same
is barred by law, therefore, the same is liable to be rejected under Order
7 Rule 11 of CPC.
• That the Plaintiff made false, wrong and incorrect statement in the
shape of plaint while concealing material facts from this Honourable
Court. In fact, the Defendant is co-sharer in suit House No.1346,
(30×600) street No.38, Sector G-11/2, Islamabad and reserves all the
rights to use and maintain the suit house and never debarred its other
co-sharers to use and occupy the same. The plaintiff has concealed this
Material aspect of the matter that the suit house mentioned in the plaint
has already been transferred by CDA in the names of all legal heirs and
the suit house is neither used nor rented by the defendant No.1.
• That the suit of the Plaintiff is not maintainable against the answering
defendant in the present form and the same is liable to be dismissed
with cost.
ON FACTS: -
• That the contents of Para No. 1 are correct, hence need no reply.
• That the contents of Para No. 2 are correct, hence need no reply.
• That the contents of Para No.3, are vehemently denied being incorrect.
The plaintiff has concealed this Material aspect of the matter that the
suit house mentioned in the plaint has already been transferred by CDA
in the names of all legal heirs and the suit house is neither used nor
rented by the defendant No.1. Apart from this whole lawsuit is
constructed and designed with malafide intentions and mutual
cooperation of plaintiff and defendant No.2 to attain undue benefits.
Further, plaintiff and defendant No. 2 brought my deceased sister to her
(defendant No.2) home when they learned that she was seriously ill
while I was away from home. During this time, plaintiff and defendant
No. 2, seizing the chance to further their own interests, replaced the
following items from the suit house illegally and without my deceased
sister's knowledge. Due to the fact that my deceased sister owned these
items and was unable to care for her home during this time, plaintiff and
defendant No. 2 had control of the suit house's keys throughout. Hence
defendant No.1 is entitled to receive his due share in replaced articles
and in the suit house.
Sr# Description Quantity
1 Gold Ornaments 70 Tola
2 Mitsubishi Ek Wagnor Reg No.Ww-742 1 No.
3 Tv Set 1 No
4 Master Bed With Two Tables 1 Set
5 Double Bed 2Nos
6 Sui Gas Heaters Rania 1 No
7 Milkshake 1 No
8 Ups 1 Set
9 Cooking Range 1 Set
10 Split Type Ac 1 Set
11 Window Type Ac 3 Set
12 Sealing Fan 7 Set
13 Master Bed Sheets With Dressing 1 Set
14 Single Bed Sheet With Dressing 2 Set
15 Riyal Currency 10 Thousand
16 Pakistani Currency 18 Thousand
Furthermore, the deceased sister's lifeless body had its subsequent gold
jewellery removed by plaintiff and defendant No. 2.
Sr# Description Quantity Total
1 Two Bangles 2 Tola
2 One Ring 1 Tola
3 Two Ear Rings 2 Tola 5 Tola
Moreover, during the life time of the deceased sister defendant No.1
established a shelter home in Gujrat namely (Chaudhary Nawab Ali
Waraich Trust and Begum Chaudhary Ashfaq Mahmood Waraich Shelter
Home), for needy and destitute women in her honour. (Pics of the shelter
home are enclosed as annexure A).
As soon as I learned about my deceased sister's illness, I returned to
Pakistan and brought my sister to a shelter home in Islamabad, where I
carefully looked after her and she quickly recovered. Following her
recovery, she discovered that plaintiff and her sister Jamila Bibi (defendant
No. 2) had replaced a number of items from the suit house, including gold, a
car, house keys, and other items (a list of which is given above). On this
deceased sister was shocked and begged plaintiff and defendant No. 2 to
return the items, but in vain; as a result, plaintiff and defendant No. 2 gave
my deceased sister the house keys and the remaining items are still in
possession of plaintiff and defendant No. 2 and they continuously delayed
to return the items upon one pretext or the other till the death of the
deceased sister. As the deceased sister was ill and not in a position to file
civil suit to recover the replaced items.
The defendant No. 1 was shocked to see the suit house in terrible shape
when he obtained the keys from the deceased sister. As the house was
unoccupied and keeping the suspicion of theft, the defendant No.1
employed a security Guard at the suit house for safety purposes from 20-
06-2011 to 30-09-2023. The defendant No.1 paid Rs.477711 (four lacs
seventy-seven thousand seven hundred and eleven Rupees) during the
said period, including salary, utility bills (Gas, water, electricity) and repair
of the bathroom of the suit house, which the defendant No 1 is entitled to
collect from the plaintiff and defendant No 2. (copy of paid bills and salary
transfer receipts are enclosed as annexure B). Hence no question of
deprivation arises, rather it is defendant No 1 who experienced loss by the
hands of Plaintiff and Defendant No 2.
As the deceased sister's genuine brother and a well-wisher, defendant No. 1
established a shelter house in her name, and she also expressed strong
desire to establish a shelter home upon which defendant No.1 not only
established the trust but also providing food, education and assistance in
multiple learning programs to needy and destitute women .In order to fulfil
the wishes of the deceased sister, following articles were shifted to shelter
home which defendant No.1 is ready to return the shares of the legal heirs
in shape of value of the articles. These items are not being used for the
defendant No. 1's personal use but rather are lying in the shelter house.
SR # DISCRIPTION QUANTITY
1 Dining Table With 6 Chairs 1 Set
2 Sofa Set Of Drawing Room 4 Pieces
3 Sofa Set Of Tv Lounge 3 Pieces
4 Sofa Set Of Tv Lounge 1st Floor 3 Pieces
5 Refrigerator 2 Nos
6 Washing Machine 1 No
7 Microwave 1No
8 2 Big Patties Contain Bed 2Nos
Sheets ,Blankets
9 Kitchen Utensils 1 Set
10 Carpets 5No.S
• That the contents of Para No.4 are vehemently denied being incorrect.
That the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 never tried to consult the answering
defendant in this matter, rather it was the answering defendant who always
tried to settle the matters amicably through one of our common friend Dr
Shahid Nawaz. It is evident from the fact that, prior to the filing of the
aforementioned lawsuit, the plaintiff and defendant No.2 agreed to resolve
the issues and wanted the keys of the subject property. I (defendant No. 1)
complied with their request in good faith, but the plaintiff and defendant
No.2 thereafter steadfastly refused to respond to any further attempts to
resolve the issue, as they both are in connection with each other and
deliberately trying to malign the reputation of defendant No.1.Both plaintiff
and defendant No.2 are enjoying and commonly sharing the articles which
were replaced by them from the suit house. The detailed reply given in the
above paras, the same may kindly be read as an integral part of this reply.
● That the contents of Para No. 5 are strongly denied being incorrect, false
and wrong. That the suit house is neither used nor rented by the
defendant No.1, hence no any benefit has been attained by the
answering defendant. Furthermore, the detailed reply given in the
above paras, the same may kindly be read as an integral part of this
reply.
• That the contents of Para No. 6 are strongly denied being incorrect, false
and wrong. The Plaintiff has no cause of action against the Answering
Defendant and suit of plaintiff is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule
11 of CPC.
• That the contents of Para No.7, are legal, hence, no need to reply
• That the content of Para No.8 is strongly denied being incorrect because
it is clear instruction from the judgements of the apex Courts that the
court fee shall be deposited by the plaintiff at the first instance on the
date of filing of suit, otherwise, the suit is liable to be dismissed on
default. It is also pertinent to mention here that the suit of the plaintiff
in not properly valued, the same my kindly be rejected under Order 7
Rule 11 of CPC.
PRAYER: -
In the circumstances, mentioned above, it is most respectfully prayed
that the suit of Plaintiff may kindly be dismissed with cost, in the
best interest of Justice.
Any other relief which this Honour-able Court deems fit and appropriate
may also be granted.
Defendant
Through
Javaid iqbal
Advocate,
Islamabad
Uzair ahmed
advocate
IN THE COURT OF HUMAIRA AFZAL CIVIL JUDGE 1ST CLASS
ISLAMABAD (WEST)
Chaudhary Muhammad Afzal VERSUS Muhammad Ashraf Etc
SUIT FOR SEPARATE POSSESSION THROUGH PARTITION RECOVERY OF
COMPENSATION FOR USE AND OCCUPATION AND
PERMANENT INJUNCTION
WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT NO.1
WRITTEN REPLY OF APPLICATION U/O 39, RULE 1 & 2 CPC, ON BEHALF OF
DEFENDANT
Preliminary Objections: -
That the application is false, frivolous, vexatious, bogus, not maintainable,
barred by law and liable to be dismissed with cost.
On Facts: -
• That, the contents of Para No.1, needs no comments. The detailed reply
has been given in written statement and the same may kindly be read
the integral part of this written reply.
• That the contents of Para No.2, are strongly denied being incorrect. The
applicant has no prima-facie and arguable case.
• That the contents of Para No.3, are strongly denied being incorrect. That
no balance of convenience or inconvenience lies in applicant's favour.
• That the contents of Para No.4, are strongly denied being incorrect.
Under the circumstances, mentioned above, is humbly prayed that the
application of the applicant, may kindly be dismissed with cost.
It is further humbly prayed that the ad-interim Injunction granted to the
Applicant in the absence and without notice to the Respondent/
Defendant may kindly be discharge/ set-aside Under Order 39 Rule 4 Of
CPC in the best interest.
Defendant
Through
Javaid Iqbal
Advocate
Uzair Ahmed
Advocate
IN THE COURT OF HUMAIRA AFZAL CIVIL JUDGE 1ST CLASS
ISLAMABAD (WEST)
Chaudhary Muhammad Afzal VERSUS Muhammad Ashraf Etc
SUIT FOR SEPARATE POSSESSION THROUGH PARTITION RECOVERY OF
COMPENSATION FOR USE AND OCCUPATION AND
PERMANENT INJUNCTION
WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT NO.1
WRITTEN REPLY OF APPLICATION U/O 39, RULE 1 & 2 CPC, ON BEHALF OF
RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
COUNTER AFFIDAVIT
I, Chaudhary Muhammad Ashraf Son of Chaudhary nawab ali , Resident of
House No.CB-29/2, Wah Cantt,Tehsil Taxila District Rawalpindi, do hereby
solemnly affirm and declare as under: -
That the contents of reply of application U/O 39, rule 1 & 2, are true and
correct and the same may kindly be read as an integral part of this Counter
Affidavit.
That the contents of applicant/Plaintiff's application U/O 39, rule 1 & 2, and
the contents of his affidavit are false, frivolous, and bogus, to the best of my
knowledge and belief and nothing has been concealed.
DEPONENT: _______________
That the contents of this Counter affidavit are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief and nothing has been concealed therein.
DEPONENT: _____________
