IN THE COURT OF SAEED AKTHAR CIVIL JUDGE MODLE TOWN COURTS,
LAHORE
Case Citation: Ch. Abdul Sattar v. Muhammad Irfan
(suit for specific performance)
Reply to Application Under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC on Behalf of
Plaintiff/Respondent
Preliminary Objections
1. The application under reply is neither maintainable nor
proceedable; therefore, it is liable to be dismissed with specific cost.
2. The application under reply has been filed with malafide intention
and collusion with the defendant to delay the proceedings pending before
this honorable court, therefore it is liable to be dismissed.
3. The applicant lacks / no locus standi to file the application under
reply on its merits.
On marits
1. needs no reply
2. The contents of paragraph No. 2 are denied being incorrect. The
applicant is not a co-owner of the suit property by any agreement. The
answering respondent has executed a sale agreement with the defendant
regarding the suit property, and paid the consecration / price to efendant,
so the applicant has no involvement or concern with the suit property.
3. The contents of paragraph No. 3 are denied being incorrect. The
applicant never paid any consideration to the answering respondent or to
the defendant. The consideration amount was solely paid by the
answering respondent to the defendant. The answering respondent is
sole executant of agreement about purchase of suit property.
4. The contents of paragraph No. 4 are denied as incorrect. The applicant
has no connection to the suit property and is neither a proper nor a
necessary party in this matter. The applicant has filed the application
solely to delay the proceedings pending before this honourable court
between the answering respondent and the defendant, and no loss will
result to the applicant.
5. The contents of paragraph No. 5 are denied as incorrect. The applicant
has no connection to the suit property and is neither a proper nor a
necessary party in this matter. The applicant has filed this application
solely to delay the proceedings pending before this honourable court
between the answering respondent and the defendant.
6. Denied. The balance of convenience does not lie in favour of the
applicant.
7. Denied.
8. Denied. The applicant has no valid/good prima facie case in his favour.
PRAYER
In light of the above-mentioned circumstances, it is most
respectfully prayed that the application under
consideration/reply may kindly be dismissed with special
cost.
Through
Mian Ismat Ullah
Advocate Supreme Court
