IN THE COURT OF IIND SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE LARKANO

F.C Suit No. of 2016

1. Abdul Wahab son of Baig Muhammad Dahani

2. Ghulam Shabir son of Khan Muhammad Dahani

Both r/o village Daim Khan Dahani, Taluka Garhi Khairo
District Jacobabad, at present Chandni Chowk Latif colony
Ratodero, District Larkana.
------------- Plaintiffs.

VE RSUS

1- Shazia widow of Malbaig Dahani

Permanent resident of Yar Muhammad Colony Larkana
At present reside at old phatak Jamshoro
c/o Abdul Hameed Dahani (brother of defendant No.1)

2- Sub-Registrar Larkano.

3- City Surveyor Officer Larkano.

4- Mukhtiarkar Larkano.

5- Province of Sindh through Secretary Revenue Department at

Karachi.
------------ Defendants.

SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF

CONTRACT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION

The above named plaintiff respectfully submits as under:-

1- That the property viz one house situated in Yar Muhammad colony
from S.No.91 measuring an area of 2000 feet consisted upon two rooms
and virandha owned and possessed by Defendant No.1.

2- That the above said property on 6.8.2013, defendant No.1 with her
own consent by signing an agreement sold out the same to the plaintiffs
in total cash considerate of rupees 800,000 and as per an agreement
executed between the parties in presence of witnesses namely Parvez
Khan & Khan Muhammad Khan both sons of Daim Khan Dahani resident of
village Daim Khan Dahani and the advance amount of Rs.600,000/= were
paid to the defendant No.1 and as per agreement, defendant NO.1
promised to give possession of the house after receiving remaining
200,000/= within period of six months.

3- That as per agreement, the plaintiffs approached the defendant

for giving her remaining amount of Rs.200,000 and for execution of
registered sale deed in their favor, but defendant kept the plaintiff on
hopes on one or other reason and lastly she refused to give possession
and ownership of the house by declaring that the value of the property
has been increased and for that plaintiffs were asked to pay more, which
is illegal and malafide on the part of defendant No.1.

4- That now the defendant No.1 by violating the terms and conditions
of contract agreement is trying to sell out the above property to some
one else.

5- That, when plaintiffs heard about the intention of the defendant

No.1 before expiry the agreement executed by defendant No.1, the
plaintiff immediately approached to defendant No.1 alongwith above
witnesses and told her that as per terms and conditions of agreement she
cannot sell the property without its fulfillment, on which defendant No.1
got annoyed, misbehaved with abusive language and declared that she is
not bound to fulfill the terms and conditions of contract agreement and
stated before the witnesses that she being owner of the property will sell
out the same at her own and whatever plaintiffs wants can do.

6- That, plaintiffs time and again themselves as well as well wishers

approached to defendant No.1 with the request not to sale out the
property which is mortgaged by defendant No.1 with plaintiffs till
payment of Rs. 200,000/= but she is reluctant to fulfill the terms and
conditions of the agreement executed by her with plaintiffs.

7- That, about a week back when plaintiffs visited above property

where they found that defendant No.1 was showing the same property to
some other people with the intention to sale out, plaintiffs also
requested to other people who were purchasing the property, not to
purchase the same as the property is already mortgaged with the
plaintiff till payment of Rs. 200,000/.

8- That matter in this regard of illegal dispossession act is also

pending before the court of 6th Additional Sessions Judge Larkana.

9- That, the action of defendant No.1 to sale out the property

mortgaged with plaintiff through vide agreement dated 06-08-2013 is
illegal, malafide and is in violation of terms and conditions of contract
agreement thus is against the principle of natural justice and the action
of defendant No. 1 in respect of above property is equally illegal hence is
liable to be restrained by issuance of injunction against the defendant
No.1 in order to protect the rights of plaintiffs.

10- That, cause of action initially accrued to plaintiffs when defendant

No.1 executed an agreement and sold out her house to the plaintiffs in
the sum of Rs.800,000/= and initially Rs.600,000/= were paid and it was
decided as per agreement to handover possession after payment of
Rs.200,000/= within six months, but plaintiffs came to know about the
intention of defendant No.1 to sale out the property and when plaintiffs
along with witnesses approached and requested her not to sale out the
property, she showed her reluctance and declared that she will sell out
the same to someone else and same is continue till filling of this suit.

11- That, parties reside and property is situated as well as cause of

action has arisen within territorial jurisdiction of this Honourable Court
hence this Honourable Court is competent to try this suit.

12- That, defendants Nos. 2 to 4 have been joined profarma

defendants as defendant No.1 is residing under the region of defendants
No.2 to 4.

13- That, for the purpose of court fees the suit is valued at rate of
Rs. 800,000/= for which maximum Court fees of Rs. 15000/= is paid the
same Court fees stamp are attached with the plaintiffs.

14- That, plaintiffs now pray for Judgment and decree as under:-

a) That this Honourable Court may be pleased to

direct defendant No.1 to fulfill the terms and
conditions of agreement dated 6.8.2013 and
execute registered deed of sale in favor of plaintiffs
on receiving its balance amount in part
performance of contract in respect of property in
suit viz one house situated in Yar Muhammad colony
from survey number 91 measuring an area of 2000
feet Taluka and District Larkana.

b) That this Honorable Court may be pleased to

grant permanent injunction to the plaintiffs against
defendant No.1 restraining her not to sell out
property bearing city survey Nos.109 situated at Yar
 Muhammad colony Larkano in favor of anybody else
in any manner directly or indirectly except due
course of law.

c) To award cost of this suit to plaintiff.

d) Any other relief be available under the
circumstances may also be granted to plaintiff.

Plaintiff

Larkano Advocate
Dated: 22-11-2016 For the Plaintiffs

VERIFICATION

I, Abdul Wahab son of Baig Muhammad Dahani, r/o village

Daim Khan Dahani, Taluka Garhi Khairo, District Jacobabad, at present
Chandni Chowk Latif colony Ratodero, District Larkana, do hereby verify
on oath that whatever stated above is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief.

Verified this on 22nd day of November 2016 at Larkano.

Deponent
I know the deponent

Advocate
Documents Produced
P.S copy of agreement dated 06-08-2013.

Larkano Advocate
Dated: 22-11-2016 For the Plaintiffs
 IN THE COURT OF IIND SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE LARKANO
F.C Suit No. of 2016

Abdul Wahab Dahani & Another.

------------- Plaintiffs.

VE RSUS

Shazia Dahani and others.

------------ Defendants.

APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 C.P.C

It is prayed on behalf of the plaintiffs that this Honourable

Court may be pleased to grant ad-interim as well as permanent

injunction against defendant No.1 not to sell out the property bearing

survey No.91 measuring an area of 2000 feet situated in Yar Muhammad

colony Larkana till final disposal of this suit on consideration of grounds

mentioned in the accompanied affidavit.

It will be in the interest of justice.

Larkano Advocate
Dated: 22-11-2016 For the Plaintiffs
 IN THE COURT OF IIND SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE LARKANO
F.C Suit No. of 2016

Abdul Wahab Dahani & Another.

------------- Plaintiffs.

VE RSUS

Shazia Dahani and others.

------------ Defendants.
AFFIDAVIT
I, Abdul Wahab son of Baig Muhammad Dahani, r/o village Daim
Khan Dahani, Taluka Garhi Khairo, District Jacobabad, at present
Chandni Chowk Latif colony Ratodero, do hereby state on oath as under:-

1- That, I am plaintiff No.1 in this case, hence am well conversant

with the facts.

2- That, accompanied injunction application has been drafted on my

specific instructions contents of it as well as contents of plaintiff may be
treated as part and parcel of this affidavit.

3- That, I have got good prima facie case and balance of convenience
lies in my favour of injunction is not granted to me I shall suffer
irreparable loss as my valuable rights is involved in this matter.

4- That, if this application is allowed and injunction is granted it will

be in the interest of justice.

Whatever stated above is true and correct to the best of my

knowledge and belief.

Deponent

Larkano I know the deponent

Dated: 22-11-2016
Advocate
 IN THE COURT OF IIND SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE LARKANO
F.C Suit No. of 2016

Abdul Wahab Dahani & Another.

------------- Plaintiffs.

VE RSUS

Shazia Dahani and others.

------------ Defendants.
AFFIDAVIT
I, Abdul Wahab son of Baig Muhammad Dahani, r/o village Daim
Khan Dahani, Taluka Garhi Khairo, District Jacobabad, at present
Chandni Chowk Latif colony Ratodero, do hereby state on oath as under:-

1- That, I am plaintiff No.1 in this case hence am well conversant

with the facts.

2- That, accompanied suit for specific performance of contract and

permanent injunction has been drafted on my specific instructions,
contents of it may be treated as part and parcel of this affidavit.

3- That, if this suit is allowed it will be in the larger interest of

justice.

Whatever stated above is true and correct to the best of my

knowledge and belief.

Deponent

Larkano I know the deponent

Dated: 22-11-2016
Advocate
 IN THE COURT OF IIND SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE LARKANO
F.C Suit No. of 2016

Abdul Wahab Dahani & Another.

------------- Plaintiffs.

VE RSUS

Shazia Dahani and others.

------------ Defendants.
AFFIDAVIT
I, Ghulam Shabir son of Khan Muhammad Dahani, r/o village Daim
Khan Dahani, Taluka Garhi Khairo, District Jacobabad, at present
Chandni Chowk Latif colony Ratodero, do hereby state on oath as under:-

1- That, I am plaintiff No.2 in this case hence am well conversant

with the facts.

2- That, accompanied suit for specific performance of contract and

permanent injunction has been drafted on my specific instructions,
contents of it may be treated as part and parcel of this affidavit.

3- That, if this suit is allowed it will be in the larger interest of

justice.

Whatever stated above is true and correct to the best of my

knowledge and belief.

Deponent

Larkano I know the deponent

Dated: 22-11-2016
Advocate
 IN THE COURT OF IIND SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE LARKANO
F.C Suit No. of 2016

Abdul Wahab Dahani & Another.

------------- Plaintiffs.

VE RSUS

Shazia Dahani and others.

------------ Defendants.

ADDRESS OF PLAINTIFFS FOR SERVICE.

Abdul Wahab son of Baig Muhammad Dahani, r/o village Daim Khan

Dahani, Taluka Garhi Khairo, District Jacobabad, at present Chandni

Chowk Latif colony Ratodero, District Larkana.

Larkana. Advocate,
Dated: 22 .11.2016. For the Plaintiffs.
 IN THE COURT OF IIND SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE LARKANO
F.C Suit No. of 2016

Abdul Wahab Dahani & Another.

------------- Plaintiffs.

VE RSUS

Shazia Dahani and others.

------------ Defendants.

LIST OF WITNESSES OF PLAINTIFF.

1. Plaintiffs. Themselves.

2. Parvez Khan. Daim Khan Dahani.

3. Khan Muhammad Khan. Daim Khan Dahani.

Both resident of village Daim Khan
Dahani Taluka Garhi Khairo, District
Jacobabad, at present Chandni
Chowk Latif colony, Ratodero,
District Larkana.

Any other witness would be produced if found necessary.

Larkana. Advocate,
Dated: 22.11.2016. For the Plaintiffs.
IN THE COURT OF 6TH ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE LARKANO
Cr Complaint No. of 2015

Shazia Dahani
------------- Applicant/Complainant.

VE RSUS

Abdul Wahab Dahani and another.

------------ Defendants.

STATEMENT

I do hereby produce the PS copy of agreement dated

6.8.2013 before this Honorable Court.

Larkana Advocate
Dated:___.11.2016 For the respondents No.1 and 4