jasglk

7/29/2019 jasglk

1/9

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.12/348measuring 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 C.N.I.C Bid Offered

Rs:

1. Mr. Atteeq Rehman S/O

Wazir Ali Abro 43304-05910035-5 600000/=

2. Mr. Athar Hussain Shah S/oFazal Hussain Shah 43304-1089385-3 620000/=

3. Hafiz Mazhar Hussain Siddiqi S/OHafiz Abdul Sattar Siddiqui 43304-3483843-3 620000/=

4. Mohammad Khan S/OHaji Khan Odho 43304-6204084-5 620000/=

5. Nabi BUx S/O Samano Bhutto 43304-5827657-3 650000/=

6. Shahid Hussain S/OKarim Bux Bhutto 43304-4511963-1 650000/=

7. Aqeel Ahmed S/O Qamaruddin Dayo 43304-60728756-7 650000/=

8. Shahid HussainS/O Amanullah Shaikh 43304-8557295-5 650000/=

9. Imran Ahmed BhuttoS/O Mohd. Safar Bhutto 43304-0472520-1 660000/=

10. QamaruddinS/O Salih Solangi 43304-4329386-1 660000/=

11. AbdulsalamS/O Saeed Ahmed Hakro 43304-0980788-9 660000/=

12. Syed Mehar Hussain Shah 43304-9800592-3 660000/=

13. Faheem AhmedS/O Nabi bux Ali Dayo 43304-1034558-9 670000/=

7/29/2019 jasglk

2/9

14. Imtiaz Ali S/O Ghulam Nabi 43304-3169715-7 670000/=

15. Anwar Ali S/O Mohd Murad 43301-0999893-5 670000/=

16. Parwaiz Ahmed S/o Bashir Ahmed 43301-7165421-9 670000/=

17. Ghzanffer Ali Shah 43304-9019682-5 670000/=

18. Syed Muzaffer Hussain Shah 43304-4172432-5 680000/=

19. Wasand Khan S/O Allah Dino Shar 43304-9685140-3 680000/=

20. Jinsar S/O Shahbuddin Bhutto 43304-4835363-9 680000/=

21. Saddaruddin Jeho 43304-5329936-1 680000/=

22. Shehzad Jeho Abro 43304-2157705-9 680000/=

23. Gulzar AhmedS/OMohd. Bachal Abbasi 43304-0596260-1 690000/=

24. Wajid Ali S/O Sher Khan Abro 43304-2339521-1 690000/=

25. Umer Daraz S/o Abdul Majeed Mahar 43304-6760533-9 700000/=

MUKHTIRAKAR AND CITYSURVEY OFFICER SHIKARPUR

7/29/2019 jasglk

3/9

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

same subject matter has been filed by the

plaintiff prior to this.

2. That the shop bearing C.S No 12/348

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

to one Dost Mohammad and after his

death it was inherited by his sons and

daughters along his widow and C.S

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

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

1.This is for Honourable Court

2.This is for Honourable Court

3.It is fact that shop bearing No.12/348 is the

property of Dost Mohammad Daudpota and

after his death the same property transferred

in the names of legal heirs of diseased

4. It is for the petitioner to prove.

7/29/2019 jasglk

4/9

annexure B).

5. That the co-sharer / landlord of the shop

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 rent from the applicant

regularly.

6. That it is hereby submitted that lady co-

owners of the shop in suit namely Mst.Irshad Begum D/O Dost Mohammad and

her mother Mst. Wazeer Khatoon Wd/O

Dost Mohammad filed a civil suit being

F.C. suit 73/09 against other co-owners

namely Nazeer Ahmed and others for

partition and permanent injunction which

was disposed off by this Honourable

court vide judgement dated 25-11-2009

directing Mukhtiarkar / City Survey Officer

Shikarpur to make partition of the shop in

between the plaintiffs and defendants of

that suit being legal heirs of late Dost

Mohammad and if it can not be

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 Dost

Mohammad (Attested photocopy of

judgement is attached herewith and

marked as annexure C).

7. That the defendant No.2 Mukhtiarkar /

City Survey Officer Shikarpur issued a

5. It is for the petitioner to prove.

6.It is fact that F.C suit No.73/2009 filed by

the Mst. Irshad Begum and Others V/SNazeer Ahmed and Others and in the same

suit your Honourable Court passed judgment

on 25-11-2009 and directed to undersigned

to partition the suit property between the

plaintiff defendants and further ordered if the

suit property not partitioned same should be

sold through open auction and sale price

distributed between the legal heirs of

deceased Dost Mohammad the same

property was auctioned in sum of

Rs:700000/= Seven Lacs to the highest

bidder Umer Daraz Mahar on 26-07-2010:-

Open auction.

7. It is corrected.

7/29/2019 jasglk

5/9

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

were held at the site of shop in suit thickly

commercial bhitai bazaar Shikarpur in

presence of plaintiff but appears thatauction was held secretly in the office of

Mukhtiarkar where the defendent no-05

Umer Daraz Mahar was held to be

auction purchaser.

8.The open auction was held in the premises

of my office in which 25 persons participated

and bid of the Umer Daraz Mahar was

accepted as the highest bid and cash wasreceived and amounting to Rs:350000/= on

same date and time and a cheque No.

530347 of A/C No. 1557-7 of remaining

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 W/O Dost

Mohammad Daudpoto 12 paisas

Rs:84000/=

2. Mst. Irshad Begum D/O Dost

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. Fayaz Ahmed S/O Bashir Ahemd

Rs:32854/=

2. Mst. Firdos D/O Raja Bashir Ahmed

Rs:16424/=

7/29/2019 jasglk

6/9

9.That it is respectfully submitted that theword auction will mean and include initiating

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. That it is only on 27-07-2010 when the

defendant no-05 and 06 disclosed that the

have purchased the shop in suit through

auction and attempted to take forcible

possession of shop in suit but could not

succeed due to timely intervention of

notables of business community of bhitai

bazaar Shikarpur.

11. That at the time of being un-successful to

take over possession of the shop in suit the

3. Mst. Roshan W/o Raja Bashir Ahmed

Rs:6720/=

4. 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

my office and 25 persons participated andshop was sold to highest bidder.

10. It is in fact the namely Notan Das

submitted application on the date of auction

in which he requested that he has given

advance Rs: 40000/= to one late Raja Bashir

Ahmed Daudpota and further requested he

has spent Rs: 20000/= on the shop

(decoration) so he may be given Rs: 60000/=

from present owner.

11. It is for plaintiff to prove.

7/29/2019 jasglk

7/9

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 muchimminent 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.

7/29/2019 jasglk

8/9

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

jurisdiction to try the suit.

17. That the plaintiff therefore prays this

Honourable Court to pass judgment and

decree as under

a. To declare that the auctionproceeding 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.

15. It is for Honourable court

16. It is for Honourable court

17. It is for Honourable court.

MUKHTIARKAR & CITY SURVEY

OFFICER SHIKARPUR

7/29/2019 jasglk

9/9

Documents

jasglk