1

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PAKPATTAN

Civil Suit No.___________/2023

SHENAZ AMEER Daughter of , Resident of Chak No.9 SP,

PO Molvi wala, Tehsil and District, Pakpattan.

PLAINTIFF
VERSUS

1. MUHAMMAD ASEER Son of Rahmant Ali, Cast Rajpoot Joya, Resident of

rajhba Road, streer No.9, mohalla Saeed Abad, Tehsil and Distric, PakPattan.
2. MUHABBAT ALI Son of Aleem Khan, Cast Rajpoot, Resident of Chak No.
36 SP, Tehsil and District Pakpattan.
DEFENDANTS

SUIT FOR PARTITION WITH PERMANENT INJUNCTION

Respectfully Sheweth:-

1. That addresses of the parties have correctly been given in the title of
the suit for the purposes of notices and summons etc.

2. That the brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff and defendants are

co-owner/ joint owner of the residential Plot/Land measuring 27-

Marlas (hereinafter called suit property) falling in salam khata 59

Kanal, 9 Marla, 27/1189 situated at Moza/Patti Nidarad, Tehsil

Pakpattan, District, Pakpattan, present Khata as per computerized

record of right of year 2019/2020, bearing Khewat No. 391 (old 373)
 2

Khatoni No.1121, situated at Mouza Nidarad, Tehsil and District

Pakpattan.

Copy of the Fard Milkiyat of the Year 2019-2020 is annexed at

Annexure “A”

3. That the plaintiff was married to the defendant no.1 on ………….. and

the marriage continued until ……….. During their marriage, the

plaintiff and the defendant no.1, as husband and wife, and also

defendant no.2 jointly purchased the suit property/plot. The plaintiff

owns 14 marlas, which is more than the 10 marlas owned by the

defendant no.1. and 3 marlas owned by the defendant no.3. However,

due to certain unfortunate events, the defendant no.1 forced the plaintiff

out of their house and subsequently divorced her. As a result, the

plaintiff has been residing with her parents.

4. That the suit property is jointly owned by the plaintiff and defendants

in the same Khewat/Khatta, Khatooni & Khasra No.s without any

specific partition/division to each owner.

5. The above said suit property is neither divided in family partition

among the parties nor divided/partitioned by the competent Authority.

6. That the plaintiff approached to the defendants for partition of the suit

property because it is impossible to keep the property joint but initially

the defendants lingered on the matter on one pretext to or the other.

7. That the plaintiff was deeply shocked and dismayed when she

discovered that the defendants had commenced construction on the

front portion of the suit Property/Plot without obtaining proper

partition. It became evident that the defendants intended to acquire the

most valuable section of the property, leaving the plaintiff with only the

less valuable back portion. Moreover, if the entire front portion were to
 3

go to the defendants, the back portion would become practically useless

due to the lack of proper access and be worth only half of the market

price of the front portion.

8. That the plaintiff approached to the defendants and request them to

refrain from illegal act on the share of plaintiff without any specific

division from the competent forum but the defendants did not bother

the genuine and legal request of the plaintiff and are adamant to usurp

the legal right of the plaintiff without any justification.

9. That the plaintiff is co-owner in the aforesaid suit property and have

lawful and legal rights to get the partition/division of the suit property

to the extent of her shares with the consent and free will of each and

every co-owner according to Law.

10. That few days ago, Plaintiff again approached defendants and requested

them for the partition/division of the suit property to the extent of share

of both owner but the defendants are not ready to accede the genuine

request of the plaintiff without heavy illegal gratification.

11. That the plaintiff tried his best to convince the defendants that partition

of the suit property is necessary to be declared as per law but the

defendants are adamant not to accede the genuine request of the

plaintiff and two days ago they flatly refused to do so.

12. That the cause of action has arisen firstly when the plaintiff and the

defendants purchased jointly the suit property, secondly when

defendants started the construction on the suit property, thirdly and

lastly when defendants refused to accede the genuine request of the

plaintiff for the partition as per law and the cause of action is still

continuing.

13. That the parties to the suit reside at Pakpattan, the cause of action also

accurred in Pakpattan, therefore, this Honourable Court, has got

jurisdiction to try and adjudicate upon the matter.

 4

14. That the court fee will be affixed as per order of this Honourable Court.

PRAYER

In the circumstances stated above, it is respectfully prayed that a decree

in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants may very kindly be passed to the

following extents:-

To partition the suit property amongst the plaintiff and the defendants

according to law as well as according to shares of parties to the suit.

That the defendants may very kindly be restrained from constructing

and changing/ alienation of suit property, selling, gifting, transferring to any one

without partition/ division and demarcation to the shares of the parties/ owners.

Any other relief which this Honourable court deems fit and

property may also be awarded.

PLAINTIFF

Through

Imdad hussain khokhar Hafiz Maqsood Ahmad Cheena

(Advocate High Court) (Advocate High Court)

VERIFICATION:
Verified on Oath at Lahore on this 12th day of Oct 2023 that the contents of paras
No.1 to 11 are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and para No.12 to 14 are
true and correct to the best of my belief.

Plaintiff
 5

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PAKPATTAN.

Civil Suit No.____________/2023

Shenaz Ameer Versus Muhammad Ameer etc

APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 & 2 READ WITH

SECTION 151 CPC FOR THE GRANT OF STAY.

Respectfully sheweth:

1. That the petitioner has filed the above titled suit in this Hon’ble court and
the grounds taken therein may be read as integral part of this
application.
2. That in view of the averments made in the accompanying plaint the
petitioner has got a good prima facie arguable case and there is every
likelihood of its acceptance in favour of the petitioner.
3. That balance of convenience also lies in favour of the petitioner.
 6

4. That if the interim relief is not granted, the petitioner shall suffer an
irreparable loss and injury.

PRAYER
It is therefore most respectfully prayed that the defendants may very
kindly be restrained from changing/ alienation the nature, selling, gifting, transferring
the suit property without partitioning and demarcating the shares of the parties till the
final decision of main suit.

Petitioner

Through

Imdad hussain khokhar Hafiz Maqsood ahmad cheena (Advocate High

Court) (Advocate High Court
IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, LAHORE.

Civil Suit No.____________/2023

SHENAZ AMEER
Versus
Muhammad AMEER etc

(APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 & 2 READ WITH

SECTION 151 CPC FOR THE GRANT OF STAY).

AFFIDAVIT OF:SHENAZ AMEER Daughter of , resident

of Chak no.9 SP, PO Molvi wala, Tehsil and
District, Pakpattan..
I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm

and declare as under:

That the contents of the accompanying petition are true

and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

 7

Deponent

VERIFICATION : Verified on oath at Lahore on 12 t h day of

Oct, 2023 that all the contents of this affidavit are true
and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief

Deponent