ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Suit No.482/2005
Shahjehan Shah
& others ………… Plaintiff
Versus
Mehboob Hussain Siddiqui
& others ………… Respondents
1. For hearing of CMA No.2510/2005
2. For issues
Date of hearing:03-3-2008
Shahjehan Shah Plaintiff in person
-----------------
KHAWAJA NAVEED AHMED, J. This is a suit for Declaration, Injunction, Director and Damages filed by the Plaintiff.
Brief facts of the case are as under: -
The plaintiff No.1 is a social worker and is operating a welfare association in the name and style of “Young Generation Welfare Association” duly registered with the relevant government department. The Plaintiff No.1’s father owned survey numbers as mentioned in Para-1 of the Plaint in Deh 373-A Taluka Digri, District Mirpurkhas and S.No.186/2, 3, 186/1, 185/4, 185/1, 158/4m, 111/3, 2, 186/4d, 152/16, 151/4,5, 151/3, 191/3 a b, 191/1b, 153/1 to 4, 193/2 ab, 192/ab, 111/3, 193/1b situated in Deh Aqil Tappo Danbharlo, Taluka Tando Bago District Badin which are still in the possession of Plaintiff No.1 and his family. In surrounding area of the village plaintiff No.1’s father had purchased 88 acres of lands from one Imdad Ali Shah in the year 1992, he sold the same land to one Shankar Lal S/o Bakhut Mal, Schedule of property was No.153, 123, 122, 120, 119, 166, 159, 157, 155, 156, 154, 172, 171, 156, 155, 154, 172, 171, 170, 169, and 167 of Deh 365 Taluka Digri District Mirpurkhas for an amount of Rs.15,10,000/-. Out of this amount he gave the plaintiff No.1 an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- after getting the same from his father the plaintiff No.1 has applied for grant of permission to purchase the property. The remaining amount of Rs.5,10,000/- was kept by the mother of plaintiff No.1. The plaintiff No.2 is wife of the plaintiff No.1, she belongs to a well-reputed Syed Family of Interior Sindh. The plaintiff No.3 is a well known landlord of Taluka Digri, District Mirpurkhas. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the defendant No.1 malafidely lodged two frivolous complaint against the plaintiff No.1 and his two real brothers on 25.10.2004 and 31.03.2005 to the Governor of Sindh which complaints were marked to the Town Police Officer, Bin Qasim, Karachi as well as to the defendant No.2(ii) without any lawful justification and without analyzing the veracity and genuineness of two frivolous complaints. The Plaintiff No.1 after filing of complaint approached the Learned Provincial Ombudsman of Sindh whereby the enquiry was initiated in the matter on 7.06.2004 and finally the matter was decided on 23.06.2004 by the Learned Provincial Ombudsman of Sindh in favour of the plaintiff No.1. It is further case of the Plaintiffs that despite the aforesaid facts and legal position the defendant No.2(ii) continuously, illegally harassing the plaintiff No.1 and his family members and sent impugned Questionnaire. The Defendant No.1 malafidely out of malicious primarily to harass the reputation of plaintiff No.1 and his family members and his real brothers amongst the public in general and in the known circle, therefore, the plaintiff claimed damages as mentioned in the memo of plaint. In the above circumstances the Plaintiffs filed this suit with the following prayer: -
I. Declare that the plaintiff No.2 is lawful and bonafide owner of Bungalow bearing No.5/III, 26th Street, Phase-V (Extension), Defence Housing Authority, Karachi admeasuring 666 sq. yards;
II. Declare that the plaintiff No.1 and 4 are lawful owner of 262 acres of lands situated in Deh Matoo, Taluka Tando Bagho, District Badin acquired the same from the plaintiff No.3 through gift;
III. Declare that the enquiry initiated by the defendant No.2(ii) on the basis of bogus complaint filed by Defendant No.1 is absolutely illegal, uncalled for, violative of fundamental and constitutional rights of the plaintiffs in terms of Articles 4, 8, 9, 14, 18, 23, 24 and 25 of the Constitutional of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and violative of Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act;
IV. Mandatory injunction suspend the operation of Quentionaire dated 29.03.2005 issued by the defendant No.2(ii), the same has no legal value in the eyes of law and violative of natural justice, therefore, liable to be declared as such.
V. Money decree granting damages to the plaintiffs to the tune of Rs.2/- Crore only from the Defendants No.1, with interest @ 22% per annum till its final realization as mentioned in para 17 of the plaint.
VI. Permanent injunction restraining the defendants specially Defendant No.2 (ii), their successors, agents, servants, legal heirs, attorneys, employees, or any person or persons for or under and/or on behalf of the defendants from harassing and calling the plaintiffs and their families members in their office pursuant to his questionair dated 29-3-2005 on the basis of bogus complaint filed by the Defendant No.1;
VII. Permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their successors, agents, servants, legal heirs, attorneys, employees, or any person or persons for or under and/or on behalf of the defendants from taking any coercive action pursuant to the Questionnaire dated 29.03.2005 against the plaintiffs and their family members;
VIII. Consequential relief(s) which this Honourable Court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case may kindly be passed.
IX. Grant any other relief (s) which this Honourable Court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.
X. Costs of the suit.
In this case Defendants have been served through summon, but vakalatnama was only filed on behalf of Defendant No.1 by Mr. Anand P. Kamrani, Advocate, but no written statement was filed by him on behalf of Defendant No.1. No written statement has been filed by Defendants No.2 to 4, as such they have been declared ex-parte vide order dated 13-2-2006, while the names of Defendants No.5&6 have been deleted.
The Plaint is on oath. It is a suit for declaration, injunction, direction and damages. Notice issued to the Defendants, service was held good. Today Plaintiff No.1 Shahjehan Shah is present in person. He filed affidavit in ex-parte proof, which is on oath wherein he reiterated the facts of the case as mentioned in the memo of plaint.
Keeping in view the facts of the case, service upon the Defendants and no rebuttal/written statement from the Defendant’s side the suit of the Plaintiffs is decreed as prayed with no order as to cost.
JUDGE