IN THE COURT OF

LEARNED RENT CONTROLLER, WALTON

CANTT, LAHORE

In re:
Ishtiag Ahmed Vs, Muhammad Ameer Hamza
(EJECTMENT PETITION)
REPLY TO APPLICATION UNDER ORDER I, RULE 10 &
151 OF CPC FOR IMPLEADING THE APPLICANT IN THE
TITLED EJECTMENT PETITION

Respectful ly heweth:
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS: -
1. That application in hand is not

maintainable hence the same is liable to

be dismissed.

2. That the application has been filed with

malafide intention just to blackmail and

harass the answering respondent and to

waste the time of this Honourable Court,

SO the same is liable to be
dismissed.
3. That the application is false and

frivolous, hence the same is liable to

be dismissed.

4. That the applicant has no locus

standi
to file the present
the same is
application hence
liable to be
dismissed.
 REPLY TO GROUNDS

i.Denied being incorrect. The applicant

has no Concern or connection with the

proceedings of the case, the

application has been filed just to

the Honourable
mislead and misquide

Court.

ii. Denied being incorrect. No rights of

applicant are applicant are involved

applicant has
in the present case. The

no Concern Or Connection with the

property.
iii. Denied being incorrect. The applicant

is only maneuvering a false story in

the case, he is just wasting the time

of the Honourable Court, it is further

added the applicant has no concern or

connection with the proceedings of the

case

iv. Denied being incorrect. There is no

apprehension of any loss and injury to

the applicant.
incorrect. There is no
v. Denied being

justification to implead the applicant

party in the proceedings of the

as

Case.
 4

vi. All grounds are false and

the

frivolous.

PRAYER:

therefore, most respectful ly

It is,

prayed that the application under reply

may very kindly be di smissed with special

Costs.

Answe ring Re spondent

Through:
Ali Zafar Kaifi
Advocate High Court

Bashir Hussain Chaudhary

Advocate High Court
85-The Mall, Lahore.
 2

5. That the application is barred by law,

hence the Same is liable to be

dismissed.

6. That the answering respondent is

entitled to recover special costs under

Section 35-A CPC.

7. That the applicant has not approached

this Honourable Court with clean hands,

hence the Same is liable to be

dismissed.

ON MERITS:

1. Para No.l needs no reply.

That the contents of Para No.2 are

false, fanciful and baseless, hence

vehemently denied. The applicant has no

Concern Or Connection with the

proceedings of the case, the applicant

is not in possession of the property in

question, the application has been filed

just to mislead and misguide the

Honoruable Court, the applicant has no

Concern Or Connection With the

proceedings of the cases.

3. Denied being incorrect. The application

is false and frivolous hence Same 1s

liable to be dismissed.