Suit for Declaration and Permanent Injunction in Pakistan

This was a Civil Case filed by us for Declaration and Permanent Injunction.Details have been omitted for the privacy of the clients.If you have a similar matter, please call now +923005075993 or email [email protected] for instant Legal Advice and Guidance on the next steps of your case involving Suit for Declaration and Permanent Injunction

IN THE COURT OF Mr. _________________ CIVIL JUDGE, ISLAMABAD

Civil Suit No…………/2012

Case Title

Suit for Declaration and Permanent Injunction

Written Statement on behalf of the Defendants No.1-3

Respectfully Sheweth:-

Preliminary Objections

1. Neither the plaintiffs have nor the plaint discloses any cause of action against the answering defendants, hence this plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC.

2. Neither there is any contract, whatsoever, between the answering defendants [or even their predecessor-in-interest] and the plaintiffs of the present suit, nor the answering defendants are bound to fulfill any contractual obligation on their part. On this account alone, the plaint is liable to be rejected.

3. The plaintiffs have not come to the Court with clean hands and their entire alleged claim is based on blackmailing the answering defendants.

4. The suit of the plaintiffs is based on their imaginative fancy flights, far from realities, a bundle of mutually destructive assertions and thus an exercise in futility which is liable to rejected forthwith.

5. The suit is not maintainable in its present legal form.

6. The plaintiffs are estopped by their conduct and words to pursue the matter against the answering defendants.

7. The suit is false and frivolous and definitely based on personal and parochial considerations of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs’ such conduct could be visualized from the factum that the predecessor-in-interest namely (Name Deleted) expired at the end of April, 2012, and   that the plaintiffs hastened to file their suit based on forged documents and fabricated assertion.

On Facts:–

1. The contents of para No.1 of the plaint are vehemently denied. It is submitted that the suit house was transferred in the name of the late predecessor-in-interest of the answering defendants vide Transfer Letter dated (deleted) in the CDA record and this factum alone demolishes the malafide assertion of the plaintiffs that there was any alleged gift in their favour.
2. In line with the foregoing paragraph, the contents of para No.2 are admitted as correct. The suit house was definitely transferred in a lawful manner in the name of the predecessor-in-interest of the answering defendants.

3. The contents of para No.3, of course based on malafide concoctions of the plaintiffs, are vehemently denied. The predecessor-in-interest of the answering defendants never held out any promise to transfer even a single inch of the suit house to the plaintiffs. It is further submitted that Mr. (deleted) the original owner of the house was annoyed with the plaintiffs and their attorney namely (deleted) for they having prepared a forged document in May 1997 pertaining to suit house. Such conduct of the plaintiffs and their attorney demonstrate that they were definitely planning to grab the property of the answering defendants’ predecessor-in-interest since long. The illegal and malafide conduct of the plaintiffs and their attorney (deleted) for forging of documents and fabrications shall be vividly explain at the time of submission of evidence before the Court.

4. The contents of para No.4 are vehemently denied. The predecessor-in-interests of the answering defendants neither acknowledged nor ever agreed to surrender any part of the suit house to the plaintiffs. The alleged agreement dated 17-05-2000 and the so-called Surrender Deed dated (deleted) are forged documents. The answering defendants are going to take all legal means, both civil and criminal, to get such documents annulled and make the responsible persons forging such documents answerable to law of the land. It is further submitted that the answering defendants never ever recognized or acknowledged the so-called self-asserted fabrications of 50% ownership of the suit house to the plaintiff.

5. The contents of para No.5 are admitted as correct.

6. It is once again reiterated that the claim of the plaintiffs on the suit is forged and frivolous one and not admitted at all.

7. The contents of para No. 7 are legal and formal.
8. Para No.8 is formal and legal.
9. Para No.9 is formal and legal.

For what has been submitted above, it is, therefore, requested that the suit of the plaintiffs be dismissed with cost in favour of the answering defendant.

Any other relief which this hon’able Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case be awarded to the answering defendants alongwith cost of these proceedings.

Defendants No.1-3

Through

Counsel

Zulfikar Khalid Maluka

Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan

Barrister Aemen Maluka

Advocate High Court

Pir Abdul Wahid

Advocate High Court

Verification

Verified on oath at Islamabad on this (deleted) that contents of the our written statement from para No.1-6 are true and correct to the best of our knowledge and belief and rest of the paras including those of preliminary objections are believed to be true on the basis of information received.

Defendants No.1-3

IN THE COURT OF Mr. NASEER KAKAR, CIVIL JUDGE, ISLAMABAD.

Civil Suit No…………/2012

Rizwan Ihsan and another   Vs. Khuram Maqbool and others

Suit for Declaration and Permanent Injunction

Application for temporary Injunction

Written reply on behalf of the Defendants No.1-3

Respectfully Sheweth:-

1. Except the filing of the suit in the hon’able Court, the contents of rest of this para are denied.

2. The contents of this para are denied. The applicants have no case at all as the same is based on a false claim supported by forged documents.

3. The contents of this para are denied, hence irreparability of loss does not arise at all. The applicants have no case at all as the same is based on false claim supported by forged documents.

4. The contents of this para are denied.

5. Based on the aforementioned observations, contents of this para are denied. The applicants are not entitled to any relief at all.

It is, therefore, requested that this application may graciously be dismissed with cost in favour of the answering respondents No.1-3.