-1-

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE, TEHSIL TAXILA.

Mir Afzal S/o Said Umar, R/o Narian, Nikku, Tehsil Taxila,
District Rawalpindi.
………………Plaintiff.
Versus
1- Azam Ali

2- Amjad Ali

3- Sher Afzal

Sons of Mir Afzal

4- Rafiullah S/o Muhammad Shahan

5- Muhammad Akram S/o Maola Bakhsh

6- Nighat Bibi W/o Shafi

7- Abdul Jalil S/o Awal

8- Hassan Munir S/o Syed Moujood Hussain

9- Muhammad Aslam S/o Zardad Khan

10- Hafeez-ur-Rehman S/o Nazir Ahmad

11- Muhammad Ali S/o Mukhtiar Ali

12- Robina Bibi W/o Amjad Ali

13- Muhammad Ilyas S/o Sardar Bahadar

14- Muhammad Munir S/o Muhammad Shahan

15- Muhammad Hashim S/o Ata Khan

16- Muhammad Saleh S/o Muhammad Rahim

17- Aziz-ur-Rehman S/o Haji Taza Gul

 -2-

18- Zahoor Muhammad S/o Haftay Khan

19- Aurangzaib S/o Abdul Rauf

20- Muhammad Ziad Khan S/o Muzaffar Khan

21- Shoukat Mehmood S/o Umar Elahi

22- Ghulam Siddique S/o Abdul Rasool

23- Shah Wali Khan S/o Sher Ali

24- Asad Ali S/o Ali Hussain Daud

25- Muhammad Shehzad S/o Sher Muhammad

26- Israr Shah S/o Syed Ghafoor Shah

27- Fazal Wahab S/o Haji Taza Gul

28- Shahida Akram W/o Muhammad Akram Khan

29- Abdul Shakoor S/o Muhammad Anwar

30- Hammad Hussain S/o Wazir Hussain

31- Azhar Iqbal S/o Jalal Khan

32- Amjad Ali S/o Muhammad Abbas

33- Muhammad Naeem S/o Fazal Khan

34- Muhammad Shafiq S/o Abdul Rauf

35- Moeen-uddin S/o Muhammad Afzal

36- Liaqat Ali Khan S/o Sultan Khan

37- Abdut-Tawab S/o Haji Taza Gul

38- Mazahir Hussain Shah S/o Bashir Hussain

Shah

39- Abdul Aleem S/o Fazal Khan

 -3-

40- Rahat-ullah S/o Muhammad Azam Khan

41- Dilawar Khan S/o Munawar Khan

42- Habib-ur-Rehman S/o Haji Taza Gul

43- Muhammad Javed Iqbal S/o Mukhtar Ahmad

44- Javed Iqbal S/o Punnun Khan

45- Yasir Malik S/o Malik Anar Hussain

46- Rustam Khan S/o Muhammad Rasheed

47- Sajawal Khan S/o Muhammad Irshad

48- Fazal Ghaffar S/o Haji Taza Gul

49- Akhtar Nawaz S/o Muhammad Rasheed

50- Hassan Zameer S/o Moujood Hussain

51- Muhammad Ashfaq S/o Maqsood Elahi

52- Hamid Ali Shah S/o Fazal Elahi

53- Abdul Sattar S/o Allah Ditta

54- Nihmat Khan S/o Nadir Khan

55- Gulzar Hussain S/o Baee Khan

56- Mujahid Khan S/o Inayat Ali

57- Bait-ullah S/o Ata Khan

58- Ghulam Qadir S/o Abdul Rasool

59- Abdul Rafe S/o Muhammad Khan

All R/o Narian, Nikku, Tehsil Taxila, District

Rawalpindi.
 -4-

60- Shahida Parveen W/o Bashir Muhammad, R/o

Behriya Housing Society Rawalpindi.

61- Muhammad Tanveer S/o Sher Muhammad, R/o

Wali Pind, Tehsil Taxila District Rawalpindi.

62- Said Akbar Khan S/o Ali Akbar, R/o Fazal

Abad, Tehsil Takht Bai, District Mardan.

63- Muhammad Siddique S/o Jalal Din, R/o Mohra

Chowk Wah Cantt, Tehsil Taxila District Rawalpindi.

64- Abdul Rasool S/o Waris Khan R/o Jalwal,

Tehsil Jand district Attock.

65- Nasir S/o Sikandar, R/o Khaliqdad, Tehsil

Hassan Abdal District Attock.

66- Zahoor Azam S/o Mali Aman Khan, R/o

Haripur.

67- Muhammad Naseem S/o Muhammad Azeem

R/o House No. 33, Mohalla Ghulam Khan, Hassan

Abdal District Attock.

…………….Defendants.

SUIT FOR SEPARATE POSSESSION THROUGH PARTITION

AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION

Respectfully submitted: -
 -5-

1- That defendants No. 4 to 67 are proforma defendants

and no relief is required from them. It would be relevant

to mention here that defendants No. 1-3 are real sons of

plaintiff.

2- That plaintiff and defendants are co-owners and co-

sharers in the total land measuring 06-11-00, bearing

Khewat No. 323 (267), Khatooni No. 395, Khasra No.

1136, according to Register of Records for the year

2014-2015; situated in Mouza Nikku Tehsil Taxila,

District Rawalpindi (hereinafter described as the suit

property).

3- That share of plaintiff is specifically given in the

Register Haqdaran Zamin, however, total share of

plaintiff No. 1 & defendants No. 1-3 measures 01-02-

136. It may be relevant to mention here that plaintiff by

himself purchased the said land in the name of self and

defendants No. 1-3 and subsequently raised

constructions there-upon by his own. The suit property

locates at road-side and too costly in nature.

4- That the suit property is surrounded by the Abadi

and a number of residential houses are established in

the vicinity. The suit property is no more required for

 -6-

agricultural purposes as it has fully assumed the

character of Sakni/Residential in nature at the spot.

5- That the suit property is still joint one and has not

been partitioned amongst the co-sharers through any

mode of partition.

6- That partition/separate possession of suit property

would be in interest of all the co-sharers as the same

can be used in best way by the owners after its

partition. There is no restriction or any legal

impediment in the partition of the suit property through

present suit.

7- That the defendants especially defendant No. 1-3,

intend to dispose off/alienate the suit property which

would be detrimental to the interests of plaintiff who is

old-age and has no other shelter for living. The plaintiff

is already suffering a lot at the hands of defendants No.

1-3. There is another aspect of the case as well. The

share of plaintiff is comparatively too lesser than that of

defendants No. 1-3 and if the defendants No. 1-3

collectively dispose off the suit property, then the share

of plaintiff would be automatically consumed in their

sale process leading to irreparable loss to the plaintiff.

 -7-

8- That the suit property is a joint property and yet not

partitioned. The defendants (No. 1-3) are not entitled to

dispose off/alienate a specific portion of suit property or

to change its existing status in any manner whatsoever;

without partition by metes and bounds.

9- That the defendants (No. 1-3) have been asked for

partition and separate possession of the suit property in

the light of easement rights & according to their

respective shares and to refrain from

transferring/alienating any specific or valuable portion

of suit property and delivering possession whereof to

anyone but they have refused to accede the genuine

request of the plaintiff, hence this suit.

10- That cause of action accrued to the plaintiff

firstly when the defendant No. 1-3 ousted the plaintiff of

the joint suit property and finally a week ago on having

information of sale of suit property by defendants No. 1-

3 and is continuing.

11- That the suit property situates within territorial

limits of Tehsil Taxila and cause of action also accrued

here; parties are residents of same vicinity, therefore,

this honorable court has got jurisdiction to adjudicate

upon the matter.

 -8-

12- That value of the suit for the purposes of

jurisdiction for partition is at Rs.20,000/- whereas for

the purposes of court fee fixed court fee of Rs.10/- has

been affixed and value of the suit for permanent

injunction for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction is

fixed at Rs.200/-.

It is therefore, respectfully prayed that a decree for

separate possession through partition of the suit

property fully described in para No.1 of the plaint, in

the light of easement rights & according to the

respective shares of the parties and a decree for

permanent injunction restraining the defendants

especially defendants No. 1-3 from disposing

off/alienating any specific/valuable portion of suit

property and changing its existing status by anyway;

may kindly be passed in favor of plaintiff and against

the defendants (Particularly No. 1-3) with costs

throughout. Any other relief which this honorable court

deems fit and proper; may also be granted to the

plaintiff.

PLAINTIFF.
Through: -

FARHANA QAMAR RANA,

Advocate High Court.
 -9-

VERIFICATION:
Verified on oath at Taxila on ____-08-2018 that contents of the
suit are true and correct to the best of plaintiff’s knowledge and
belief.

Plaintiff.
 - 10 -

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE, TEHSIL TAXILA.

Mir Afzal Versus Azam Ali etc

SUIT FOR SEPARATE POSSESSION THROUGH PARTITION

AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION

APPLICATION U/O 39 RULE 1 & 2 AND SECTION 94 & 151

CPC.

Respectfully submitted:-

1- That the applicant has filed the captioned suit before

this honorable court today; contents of the same may

kindly be read as integral part of this application.

2- That the applicant has a good prima facie case/suit

in his favor and there is every likelihood of his success

in the case.

3- That balance of convenience also lies in favor of

applicant/plaintiff.

4- That if the temporary injunction is not granted, the

applicant would suffer irreparable loss.

It is therefore, respectfully prayed that the

respondents (Particularly No. 1-3) may

kindly be restrained from disposing

off/alienating any specific/valuable

 - 11 -

portion of suit property and changing its

existing status by anyway, till final

disposal of the main suit.

………APPLICANT.
Through: -

FARHANA QAMAR RANA,

Advocate High Court .
Dated: ___.08.2018.
 - 12 -

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE, TEHSIL TAXILA.

Mir Afzal Versus Azam Ali etc

SUIT FOR SEPARATE POSSESSION THROUGH PARTITION

AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION

APPLICATION U/O 39 RULE 1 & 2 AND SECTION 94 & 151

CPC.

AFFIDAVIT

I, Mir Afzal S/o Said Umar, R/o Narian, Nikku, Tehsil Taxila,

District Rawalpindi, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as

under:-

1- That contents of the accompanying application are

true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief

and nothing has been concealed therein.

2- That the contents of this Affidavit are also true and

correct to the best of deponent’s knowledge and belief.

DEPONENT