IN THE COURT OF MS.

SOBIA BASHIR, CIVIL JUDGE, FAISALABAD

IN RE,

Sitara Developers Pvt Ltd VS. Muhammad Rafi etc.

(Suit for Partition)
Written Statement On The Behalf Of The Defendants
Respectfully submitted as under:
Preliminary Objections:
1. That it is narrated in the contents of the plaint that the plaintiff has filed the suit claiming to
be a Company; but the suit has not been filed through competent and authorized person because
entity itself cannot file the suit unless there is valid authorization in the name of legal person.
furthermore, in case of Company it was required to file certificate of authorization along with
Memorandum Association & Article of Association and in absence of proper authorization,
Memorandum of association and Article of Association the plaint is liable to be rejected under
order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

2. That the plaintiff has not approached to the court with clean hands, thus the plaintiff is not
entitled to get any discretionary relief.

3. That the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit.

4. That the plaintiff is estopped by their words and conduct.

5. That the suit is undervalued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction.

6. That the suit is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of the parties.

7. That the title of the plaintiff is defective for wrong entry in the revenue record, therefore, the
suit is not maintainable because in order to file suit for partition, as such co-owner is pre-
condition according to provisions of Section 4 of Punjab Partition of Immoveable Property Act,
2012 and this provision hit to proceed the matter.

8. That the suit is not maintainable for want of possession of the plaintiff over the property.

9. That the jurisdiction of civil court is in question.

10. That the suit is false, frivolous and vexatious and may kindly be dismissed with spatial cost.

11. That the suit is bad for partial partition and is liable to dismissed as held in a judgment
reported in 2023 CLC 380 & PLD Z018 Peshawar 8.

12. That the suit is false, frivolous and vexatious and may kindly be dismissed with special cost.

13. That the jurisdiction of civil court is in question.

14. That answering defendant has bonafidely made Improvement with Rs.2,50,00,000/-, now
the present value Is of Rs: 50,000,000/- and the answering defendant is entitled to get the same
as per judgment reported in PLJ 1992 SC 139 and as per provision of The Mesne Profits and
Improvements Act, 1855.

ON FACTS:

1. That as per assertion of plaintiff "Sitara Developer Pvt Ltd" is registered Company; but the
suit has not been filed through competent and authorized person because entity itself cannot file
the suit unless there is authorization in the name of natural person. Furthermore, in case of
Company it was required to file certificate of authorization along with Memorandum
Association & Article of Association and in absence of proper authorization, Memorandum of
association and Article of Association the plaint is liable to be rejected under order 7 Rule 11
CPC
2. That the statement of this paragraph as stated is incorrect. In order to file the suit, Ihe plaintiff
has made reliance upon jamabandi for the year 2019-2020 according to which the plaintiff
claims to be owner to the extent of an area measuring 6K-15M but the Plaintiff has concealed
and suppressed some material facts. As per facts, the plaintiff's alleged company has acquired
right through a sale deed No.2977 dated 09-06- 2002. At that time, the total area of total khewat
was 710K-14M; However, the effects of the sale deed No.2977 were not Incorporated in
the revenue record which affected the genuineness and authenticity of sale dead. In the year
2009, the Plaintiff’s Company filed an application to District Officer (Revenue) to take effect
the sale deed No.2977 In the revenue; but this was dismissed vide order dated 31-12-2009 on
the ground that the Plaintiff should have approached to the civil court for correction of entries
of revenue record. Later on the plaintiff’s side file the suit on strength of this sale deed No.2977
and this suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 21-11-2011.

In the pertinent to mention here that when the plaintiff's Company moved application to District
Officer (Revenue), the Patwari Halqa made a report that the plaintiff's company acquired rights
from vendor through sale deed NO.2977 dated 09-06-2002 and plaintiff’s company side
obtained possession of Killa NO.8-Min, 10-Min, 15/3 of Sq. No.35 of an area measuring 16K-
15M. At that time, the vendor never In possession of that specific part of property and If any
person get possession of specific killa numbers he has to retain the possession of specific Killa
No. as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a judgment PLD 1959 SC9 & 1984
SCMR 427 and he can only seek partition if he is in less to his entitlement. But the plaintiff's
company remained in possession of alleged purchased area from Sq. No.35. At this stage they
could not claim right from Sq. No.27 which never remained in their possession. The record
reflects that plaintiff’s company joined hands with revenue field staff and got attested a
mutation No.5736 on the strength of alleged sale deed NO.2977. When the application for
incorporation of name of plaintiff’s company was dismissed and suit too was dismissed there
was no occasion for attestation of mutation No.5736 dated 19-12-2012 on the strength of sale
deed No.2977.
It is worth mentioning here that the plaintiff’s company does the business of real estate,
firstly, the get the possession from Sq. No.35. When they raised construction thereon and the
area left for street now plaintiff’s company is extending rights over the Sq. No.27. Whereas, the
answering defendants are in possession to the extent of their entitlement. If plaintiff’s company
having any claim they should approach the revenue authority. Similarly, the answering
defendants having right to challenge the validity of sale deed No.2977 & sale mutation
No.5736.
It is further pertinent to mention here that after attestation of sale deed No.2977, different
transactions have been taken place and partition order has been passed. Unless the effects of
partition were not eliminated there exists no reason to attest the mutation No.5736, the plaintiffs
company cannot get benefit of his own wrong/ negligence.

3. That the statement of this para as stated is incorrect. Mere attestation of mutation on the basis
of the sale deed after partition proceedings does not create right in the favor of the plaintiff, in
this scene of fact, the suit is not maintainable and the suit is liable to be dismissed. The plaintiff
has filed the suit to make up the deficiency from Sq. No.27 but plaintiff’s company has the right
to retain property from Sq. No.35 from which they acquired rights and took over the possession
of the property from his vendor.

Para 04--07: The contents of Para No.04—07 are incorrect.

Meaningful reply has been given in the above para.
PRAYER,

In the light of submission made above, it is therefore respectfully prayed that the suit is false
and frivolous may kindly be dismissed with special cost.
 ANSWERING DEFENDANTS
Muhammad Rafi S/O Noor Muhammad
Abdul Rashid S/O Noor Muhammad
Abdul Majeed S/O Noor Muhammad
Saif Ali S/O Abdul Majeed
Muhammad Sharif S/O Noor Muhammad
Muhammad Jamil Ahmed S/O Noor Muhammad

Shafique-Ur-Rehman S/O Abdul Hameed

Najma Nasreen D/O Abdul Hameed
Kalsoom Nasir D/O Abdul Hemeed
Furrukh Anees S/O Anees-Ur-Rehman
Hafiz Qadoos-Ur-Rehman S/O Anees-Ur-Rehman
Safoora Anees D/O Anees-Ur-Rehman
Residents Of Chak No 189 R.B,TehSil Sadar, Dislñct Faisalabad.

Through Counsil:

 Anis Law Associates

31-Randhawa Law Chamber, District Court Faisalabad
Verification:
Verified on oath at Faisalabad on 27/02/2024 that the contents of written statement Para No. 01––03 are true
and correct to the best of my knowledge and Para No. 04––07 are Correct to my belief.
ANSWERING DEFENDANT
 IN THE COURT OF MS. SOBIA BASHIR, CIVIL JUDGE FAISALABAD

IN RE,

Sitara Developers Pvt Ltd VS Muhammad Rafi etc

[Suit for Partition]

WRITTEN REPLY TO THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF STAY ON BEHALF OF

RESPONDENTS
Answering Respondent respectfully submits as under:
1. That as such calls no comments.
2. That the contents of written statement be considered an integral part of written reply.
3. That incorrect. The answering respondents are owner of the property and ownership
rights are protected under the provisions of Constitution of Islamic Republic of
Pakistan, 1973 end no injunctive order can be issued against an owner of the properly,
further, the maintainability of the suit in question therefore is no scope for issuance of
injunctive order.
Para No.4––5: That the contents of Para No. 4––5 are Incorrect.

In the light of facts stated above, it is

therefore respectfully prayed that
application under reply is not
maintainable, may kindly be rejected.

ANSWERING RESPONDENTS

Through Counsil:

 Anis Law Associates

31-Randhawa Law Chamber, District Court Faisalabad