OFFICE OF THE MUKHTIARKAR AND CITY SURVEY OFFICE SHIKARPUR

ORDER
As per the order of Honourable Court of First Senior Civil Judge Shikarpur Passed in Judgement dated 25-11-2009 in F.C suit no.73/2009 filed by Mst. Irshad Begum & Other v/s Nazir Ahmed & Others. The suit Property viz: shop C.S:No.12/348 measuring 15.3 squire yards was auctioned & following were participated in open auction dated 26-07-2010. The bid of Mr. Umer Daraz S/O Abdul Majeed Mahar was accepted as the Highest Bid. S. # Name In Full 1. Mr. Atteeq Rehman S/O Wazir Ali Abro 2. Mr. Athar Hussain Shah S/o Fazal Hussain Shah 3. Hafiz Mazhar Hussain Siddiqi S/O Hafiz Abdul Sattar Siddiqui 4. Mohammad Khan S/O Haji Khan Odho 5. Nabi BUx S/O Samano Bhutto 6. Shahid Hussain S/O Karim Bux Bhutto 7. Aqeel Ahmed S/O Qamaruddin Dayo 8. Shahid Hussain S/O Amanullah Shaikh 9. Imran Ahmed Bhutto S/O Mohd. Safar Bhutto 10. Qamaruddin S/O Salih Solangi 11. Abdulsalam S/O Saeed Ahmed Hakro 12. Syed Mehar Hussain Shah 13. Faheem Ahmed S/O Nabi bux Ali Dayo C.N.I.C Bid Offered Rs: 600000/= 620000/= 620000/= 620000/= 650000/= 650000/= 650000/= 650000/= 660000/= 660000/= 660000/= 660000/= 670000/=

43304-05910035-5 43304-1089385-3 43304-3483843-3 43304-6204084-5 43304-5827657-3 43304-4511963-1 43304-60728756-7 43304-8557295-5 43304-0472520-1 43304-4329386-1 43304-0980788-9 43304-9800592-3 43304-1034558-9

14. Imtiaz Ali S/O Ghulam Nabi 15. Anwar Ali S/O Mohd Murad 16. Parwaiz Ahmed S/o Bashir Ahmed 17. Ghzanffer Ali Shah 18. Syed Muzaffer Hussain Shah 19. Wasand Khan S/O Allah Dino Shar 20. Jinsar S/O Shahbuddin Bhutto 21. Saddaruddin Jeho 22. Shehzad Jeho Abro 23. Gulzar Ahmed S/OMohd. Bachal Abbasi 24. Wajid Ali S/O Sher Khan Abro

43304-3169715-7 43301-0999893-5 43301-7165421-9 43304-9019682-5 43304-4172432-5 43304-9685140-3 43304-4835363-9 43304-5329936-1 43304-2157705-9 43304-0596260-1 43304-2339521-1

670000/= 670000/= 670000/= 670000/= 680000/= 680000/= 680000/= 680000/= 680000/= 690000/= 690000/= 700000/=

25. Umer Daraz S/o Abdul Majeed Mahar 43304-6760533-9

MUKHTIRAKAR AND CITY SURVEY OFFICER SHIKARPUR

IN THE COURT OF FIRST SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE SHIKARPUR F.C SUIT NO. 105 OF 2010.
1.

Notan Das S/0 Lashaman Das_________________Plaintiff.

2. V/S P.O Sindh and others _________________defendants.

PARA WISE COMMENTS

Comments The plaintiff begs to submit as under: 1. That no suit of like nature in respect of 1.This is for Honourable Court same subject matter has been filed by the plaintiff prior to this. 2. That the shop bearing C.S No 12/348 2.This is for Honourable Court situated in Bhittai Bazar Shikarpur herein after referred to as the shop in suit is within the jurisdiction of this Honourable court. 3. That the shop in suit originally belonged 3.It is fact that shop bearing No.12/348 is the to one Dost Mohammad and after his property of Dost Mohammad Daudpota and death it was inherited by his sons and after his death the same property transferred daughters along his widow and C.S in the names of legal heirs of diseased Record was accordingly mutated in their favour. (Attested Photo copy is attached and marked as annexure A). 4. that the eldest S/o Dost Mohammad 4. It is for the petitioner to prove. Namely raja Bashir Ahmed had let out the shop in suit to the plaintiff under return agreement dated 09-06-1998 and amount of 40000/= was received by Raja Bashir Ahmed from Plaintiff as security deposit which was payable to the Plaintiff at the time of delivery of said shop to the owners. (Attested Photo state copy of Contents

annexure B). 5. That the co-sharer / landlord of the shop 5. It is for the petitioner to prove. in suit namely Raja Bashir Ahmed had been collecting rent from the Plaintiff till he was alive and after his death the defendant No.3 Ali Ahmed who happens to the cousin of deceased Raja Bashir Ahmed or otherwise a near relative of the co-owners of the shop in the suit started collecting regularly. 6. That it is hereby submitted that lady co- 6.It is fact that F.C suit No.73/2009 filed by owners of the shop in suit namely Mst. the Mst. Irshad Begum and Others V/S Irshad Begum D/O Dost Mohammad and Nazeer Ahmed and Others and in the same her mother Mst. Wazeer Khatoon Wd/O suit your Honourable Court passed judgment Dost Mohammad filed a civil suit being on 25-11-2009 and directed to undersigned F.C. suit 73/09 against other co-owners to partition the suit property between the namely Nazeer Ahmed and others for plaintiff defendants and further ordered if the partition and permanent injunction which suit property not partitioned same should be was disposed off by this Honourable sold through open auction and sale price court vide judgement dated 25-11-2009 distributed directing Mukhtiarkar / City Survey Officer deceased Shikarpur to make partition of the shop in property between Dost was the legal in heirs the sum of of Mohammad auctioned same rent from the applicant

between the plaintiffs and defendants of Rs:700000/= Seven Lacs to the highest that suit being legal heirs of late Dost bidder Umer Daraz Mahar on 26-07-2010:Mohammad and if it can not be Open auction. partitioned then the Mukhtiarkar / City Survey officer Shikarpur shall sale the shop in question through auction and the sale price be distributed in between all the legal heirs of deceased photocopy Dost of Mohammad (Attested

judgement is attached herewith and marked as annexure C). 7. That the defendant No.2 Mukhtiarkar / 7. It is corrected. City Survey Officer Shikarpur issued a

notice to the plaintiff in the month of February 2010 informing the plaintiff that he has been authorized to auction the shop in suit with further direction to the plaintiff not to make payment of rent to any body as auction proceedings would be taken by him (Attested photocopy of notice is attached and marked as annexure D). 8. That there after no auction proceedings 8.The open auction was held in the premises were held at the site of shop in suit thickly of my office in which 25 persons participated commercial bhitai bazaar Shikarpur in and bid of the Umer Daraz Mahar was presence of plaintiff but appears that accepted as the highest bid and cash was auction was held secretly in the office of received and amounting to Rs:350000/= on Mukhtiarkar where the defendent no-05 same date and time and a cheque No. Umer Daraz Mahar was held to be 530347 of A/C No. 1557-7 of remaining auction purchaser. amount Rs:350000/= also received and further the highest bidder deposited remaining received cash on 28-07-2010 and the cheque was cancelled on the same date an amount of Rs:140000/= was paid to the plaintiff through his attorney as per their shares as under: 1. Mst. Wazir Khatoon Daudpoto Begum W/O 12 D/O Dost paisas Dost Mohammad Rs:84000/= 2. Mst. Irshad Mohammad 8 Paisas Rs:56000/= After few days Rs:88854/= also paid to their legal heirs viz: defendants Late Raja Bashir Ahmed 16 Paisas in his legal heirs as under: 1. 2. Fayaz Ahmed S/O Bashir Ahemd Rs:32854/= Mst. Firdos D/O Raja Bashir Ahmed Rs:16424/=

3. 4.

Mst. Roshan W/o Raja Bashir Ahmed Rs:6720/= Mohammad Aijaz S/O Raja Bashir Ahmed Rs:32854/=

The remaining amount Rs: 471146/= is balance for distribution among the legal heirs deceased Dost Mohammad. All were called but till to date they not appeared for receiving their shares. 9. The auction was properly made openly in 9.That it is respectfully submitted that the my office and 25 persons participated and word auction will mean and include initiating shop was sold to highest bidder. after proceeding openly so that no of persons may participated and the highest bidder amongst the participant is given the property through proper auction in order to fetch the highest amount of property being auctioned. In the present case the so called auction is illegal void- ab initio, without jurisdiction having no legal effect and nullity in law as there was every possibility of plaintiff to participate in auction proceedings in order to get a shop in suit his name being already in lawful possession and enjoyment 10. It is in fact the namely Notan Das 10. That it is only on 27-07-2010 when the submitted application on the date of auction defendant no-05 and 06 disclosed that the in which he requested that he has given have purchased the shop in suit through advance Rs: 40000/= to one late Raja Bashir auction and attempted to take forcible Ahmed Daudpota and further requested he possession of shop in suit but could not has succeed due to timely intervention spent Rs: 20000/= on the shop of (decoration) so he may be given Rs: 60000/= 11. It is for plaintiff to prove.

notables of business community of bhitai from present owner. bazaar Shikarpur. 11. That at the time of being un-successful to take over possession of the shop in suit the

defendants No.05 & 06 issued threats that incase the plaintiff did not vacate the shop in suit on or before 31 July 2010 defendant 05 & 06 would certainly occupy the shop in suit by force and show of terror and the articles lying their in would be thrown out and or they would put their lock on the door of shop in suit. 12.That the plaintiff apprehends his forcible dispossession from the shop in suit by the defendants No.05 & 06 by putting their locks upon the locks already put their on by the plaintiff and such an eventuality is very much imminent and impending. 13. That the defendants 05 & 06 have absolutely no right dispossess plaintiff. Consequently unless the defendants No.05& 06 or restrained by the Honourable court from the doing of above illegal act, the plaintiff highly pre-judiced & shall suffer an irreparable injury. 14.That the cause of action arose to the plaintiff to file the present suit on 27-07-2010 when the defendants 05 & 06 for the first time disclosed that the defendant 05 has purchased the shop in suit in auction an attempted to dispossess the plaintiff from shop in suit but could not succeed and went away by giving clear threats to the plaintiff to vacate the shop in suit and to take away articles lying in it on or before 31 July 2010 failing which the defendants 05 & 06 would take over possession of shop in suit by force and would throw the articles lying in it or they would put their own lock on the locks of the plaintiff already put on the door of shop in 14. No comments. 13. It is for plaintiff to prove. 12. It is for plaintiff to prove.

suit and the cause of action has still remained accruing each day their after being continuing one. 15. That the suit for purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is valued at 400/= for declaration and at Rs: 400/= for P. Injunction on which no court fee requires to be paid. 16. That this Honourable court has 17. It is for Honourable court. jurisdiction to try the suit. 17. That the plaintiff therefore prays this Honourable a. To Court to pass judgment and declare that the auction decree as under proceeding held by defendant No.02 or illegal vide-ab initio, without lawful authority and hence defendant No.05 can not be termed has lawful auction purchaser. b. To further declare that the plaintiff being in lawful possession since 1998 has every right to hold the same. c. To restrain the defendants No.05 & 06 from dispossessing the plaintiff by force by themselves or through any person/agency claiming under them and from creating third party interest in suit shop. d. Costs. e. Any other relief. 16. It is for Honourable court 15. It is for Honourable court

MUKHTIARKAR & CITY SURVEY OFFICER SHIKARPUR