IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Suit No. 1070 of 2002
Plaintiff:- Muhammad Yaqoob.
Defendant Nos.1 & 2 Director General and Executive Engineer, City District Government, (KDA Wing) through Mr.Ali Azam, Advocate.
Defendant No.3 SHO, P.S. Korangi Industrial Area, Karachi.
Defendant No.4. Mst; Najma Muneer through Mr. Abdul Sattar Gujjial, Advocate
Date of hearing 20.05.2009
Date of Judgment 29.05.2009
J U D G M E N T
Salman Ansari, J: The plaintiff has filed this suit for declaration and permanent injunction claiming to be an Estate Agent running an agency in the name and style of "MOHSIN ESTATE AGENCY" situated in Defence Area, Karachi wherein he prayed for as under:-
It is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass Judgment and Decree for Declaration and Permanent Injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants to the effect :
1. To declare that the Plaintiff is the sole and absolute owner of Plots of Land bearing Nos.A-18, A-19, A-20, A-30, A-33, A-36. A-60, A-78, A-107, A-135, A-137, A-140, A-215, A-216, A-288, A-335, A-336, all measuring : 240 Sq. Yds and Plot Nos.B-07, B-21, B-29, B-35, B-38, B-39, B-46, B-211, measuring 400.00 Sq. Yds (each) situated in Sector No.6-H, Mehran Town, (Korangi Township) Korangi Industrial Area, Township, Karachi vide LEASE DEED respectively.
2. To restrain their men, agents, subordinates, servants, attorneys, sub-attorneys, relatives, friends, person or persons may be restrain, not to demolish and not disturb the peaceful possession of the plaintiff and as well as the purchaser(s) without due course of law in respect of Plot Nos. A-18, A-19, A-20, A-30, A-33, A-36. A-60, A-78, A-107, A-135, A-137, A-140, A-215, A-216, A-288, A-335, A-336, all measuring : 240.00 Sq. Yds. Situated in Sector No.6-H, Mehran Town Korangi Industrial Area, Karachi, and also Plot Nos. B-07, B-21, B-29, B-35, B-38, B-39, B-46, B-211, all plots admeasuring : 400.00 Sq. Yds situated in Sector No.6, Mehran Town, Korangi Industrial Area, Karachi, till the disposal of the suit.
3. Any other relief or reliefs which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper according to the circumstances of the case.
4. Cost of the suit."
2. That with the plaint photocopies of documents of some properties were attached and a list of 18 plots were given in the legal notice issued by the advocate for the plaintiff to the defendant No.1.
3. That written statements were filed by defendants Nos.1, 2 and 3 and the defendant No.3 while denying the contents of the plaint submitted that the plaintiff was an absconder in FIR No.387/2002 under sections 420/468/471/467/34 PPC, registered at P.S. Industrial Area, Korangi and that the plaintiff has filed this suit to avoid being apprehended in the above criminal case registered for selling the properties by forged documents of the plot. The defendants Nos.1 and 2 in their written statements alleged that on the report being called for from the Executive Engineer concerned all the papers of these plots were found fake and fabricated and the office has never delivered physical possession to the so called allottee of these plots as the same were fake and fabricated and that the Lease Deed of these plots had not been executed by the office of the defendants Nos.1 & 2 (City District Government Karachi) (KDA Wing).
4. That subsequently the defendant No.4 on an application was impleaded and in the written statement denying the contents of the plaint alleged that earlier Suit No.31/2002 was filed by one Fazal Hakeem, which was dismissed by the IXth Civil Judge, Karachi-East as the defendant No.4 was the real owner of the suit plot No.B-7, Sector 6-H, Korangi Township, for which the plaintiff had prepared forged and fabricated documents through one Fazal Hakeem who is a fraud and is running an Estate Agency for land grabbing and to the fraud innocent persons and to usurp KDA lands.
5. That Issues were framed as under:-
"(1) Whether the plaintiff purchased plots of land from various persons invested huge amounts?
(2) Whether the defendant No.2 did demarcation of plots of land and received Rs.20,000/- against each plots, from the plaintiff?
(3) Whether the K.D.A. officer executed Lease Deed in favour of the plaintiff before the concerned Registrar in respect of plots in question?
(4) Whether clerical staff of K.D.A. neither maintained the official record properly of plots in question?
(5) Whether the clerical staff of K.D.A. Wing, C.D.G.K. misplaced the original documents in respect of plots in question fraudulently?
(6) Whether the official record in respect of plots are under the custody of defendants Nos.1 and 2?
(7) Whether the suit as framed is filed is maintainable under the law?
(9) What should the decree be?"
And subsequently on 31.3.2008 the following Issue was added:-
"(10) Whether the defendant No.4 is the lawful owner/transferee in physical possession of one of the Plots i.e. Plot No.B-7, (Measuring 400 Sq. Yds. with construction thereon) Sector 6-H, Korangi Township Karachi or the plaintiff has any right or entitlement over the same?"
6. That Commissioner was appointed to record evidence of the parties and the Commissioner's final report dated 5.9.2008 shows that the plaintiff was provided ample opportunities from 2.1.2008 upto 28.7.2008 to produce evidence, but the plaintiff remained absent and also defendants Nos.1, 2 and 3 and their sides were closed only on behalf of defendant No.4 that one P.W. Iftikhar Ahmed Attorney of defendant No.4 was examined at Ex. A/1-A and he had produced his affidavit-in-evidence as Ex-A/1-B, CNIC as Ex-A, Power of Attorney executed in favour of defendant No.4 as Ex-A/1, allotment order as Ex-A/2, acknowledgement of possession order as Ex-A/3 alongwith site plan, challan as Ex-A/4 alongwith token of pay order from United Bank Ltd, Karimabad Karachi, Sale Agreement as Ex-A/5, receipt of amount paid to daily Urdu "Hurriyat" in respect of advertisement for the purchase of the suit property as Ex-A/6, mutation order from KDA as Ex-A/7, challan issued by KDA as Ex-A/8, 3 photographs punched on a paper as Ex:A/9 and other three photographs punched on a paper as Ex; A/10 were produced.
7. That thereafter due to failure of the plaintiff to appear on dates of hearing an intimation notice was sent as a last resort but no one has appeared for the plaintiff. Arguments of the learned counsel for the defendant (City District Government Karachi) were heard and also the defendant No.4.
8. As the plaintiff has failed to appear and produce any evidence in spite of several opportunities having been given and the only evidence produced before the Commissioner was by the defendant No.4. Hence I dismiss this suit with no order as to cost.
J U D G E