IN THE COURT
OF ___ ADL. DIST. JUDGE SOUTH AT KARACHI
S.M.A. No. 1249/2004
Muhammad Younus
Soomro …..…………….…….……… APPLICANT
VERSUS
Mst. Mubashra & Others ………..…………………………RESPONDENTS
REPLY/OBJECTIONS ON
BEHALF OF
THE
RESPONDENT No. 1 to 4
LEGAL OBJECTIONS
1.
That this application is
not maintainable, as the applicant has not submitted any solid documentary
proof for his Claim.
2.
That this application
has no locus standi.
3.
That the applicant has
not come with clean hands and this application has been filed with malafide
intention and ulterior motives just to harass and black mail the respondents.
4.
That the applicant never
appeared before this Hon’ble Court when this Hon’ble Court made publication in
daily newspaper “Nawa-e-Waqt” for objection if any from any person or legal
heir.
5.
That this application is
not maintainable, as the application filed is time bared.
Without prejudiced the respondent No. 2 Para wisely replies
as under:
1.
That the contents of
Para No. 1 are partly admitted but it is denied that the applicant is entitled
for assets and debts of deceased above named in existence of entitled legal
heirs.
2.
That the contents of
Para No. 2 are admitted to the extent that the applicant is the only son of his
father Arbab Ali Soomro but rest of the Para is denied as the applicant is not
entitled for assets and debts of deceased above named in existence of entitled
legal heirs.
3.
That the contents of
Para No. 3 are denied as submitted. The Letter of Administration was obtained
rightly and bona fidely without any concealment, fraud or false suggestion.
4.
That the contents of
Para No. 4 are partly admitted and denied to the extent of revocation of Letter
of Administration.
5.
That the allegations in
contents of Para No. 5 are baseless, concocted and it is submitted that the
Letter of Administration was granted on merit, there is no concealment, fraud
or misrepresentation to obtain Letter of Administration. The applicant leveled
allegation without any cogent reason or documentary evidence in. The applicant
ought to file Suit for Declaration and Cancellation of document produced by the
respondent and then to file to revoke Letter of Administration.
6.
That the contents of
Para No. 6 need no comments, and no need to interfere in this application under
reply.
7.
That the allegations in
contents of Para No. 7 are baseless, frivolous and concocted hence denied
strictly.
8.
That the contents of
Para No. 8 are denied, the deceased was not issueless, rest of the Para is not
denied.
9.
That the contents of
Para No. 9 are denied, and it is submitted that the Letter of Administration
was issued on 30-10-2004.
10.
That the contents of
Para No. 10 need no comments.
11.
That the contents of
Para No. 11 are partly admitted that the deceased was lawful and bonafide owner
of the property bearing No. C/36/9-A, ST No. 19, Punjab Colony Bazar Karachi,
and the rest of the Para is baseless, frivolous and concocted require strict
proof thereof.
12.
That the contents of
Para No. 12 are denied, these documents have no concern with the respondents.
On basis of surmises the applicant wants to usurp the above said property.
13.
That the contents of
Para No. 13 are denied.
14.
That the affidavits
mentioned in contents of Para No. 14 are baseless and concocted.
15.
That the allegations
leveled in contents of Para No. 15 are baseless and concocted, hence denied.
16.
That the allegations
leveled in contents of Para No. 16 are denied.
17.
That the allegations
leveled in contents of Para No. 17 are baseless and frivolous, if a person does
not approach to Clifton Cantonment after obtaining Letter of Administration
does not show any fraud. If it is a criteria that a person did not approach
Clifton Cantonment then it is a big crime the applicant did not approach in
District Judge Karachi South for Letter of Administration being so called only
legal heir despite elapse of 8 years and 6 months.
18.
That the contents of
Para No. 18 are admitted to the extent of approaching the Clifton cantonment
Board Karachi, but rest of the Para is denied.
PRAYER
Under the circumstance and facts mention above
the prayer of the applicant is denied strictly and is liable to be dismissed
with special Cost under section 35-A CPC.
Karachi.
Dated:06/01/2014. ______________________
Respondent
No. 1.
____________________
Respondent
No. 2.
______________________
Respondent
No. 3.
______________________
Respondent
No. 4.
Advocate for the Respondents
VERIFICATION
We, (1). Mst. Mubasira wd/o.
Nawab Soomro, (2). Amir Soomro, (3).
Mst. Sanober, (4). Zakir Soomro sons
and daughter of Nawab Soomro, Muslims,
adults, Resident of Karachi, do hereby state and
verify on oath that whatever has been stated above is true and correct to the
best of my knowledge, information and
belief.
Karachi.
Dated: 06-01-2014. _________________________
Respondent
No. 1.
____________________
Respondent
No. 2.
______________________
Respondent
No. 3.
______________________
Respondent
No. 4.
The deponent identified by me.
(ADVOCATE)
Solemnly
affirmed on oath before me at Karachi on this __ th day of _______ 2014, by the
deponent abovenamed who is identified by Mr. S M ZUBAIR, Advocate whom I know personally.
COMMISSIONER FOR TAKING AFFIDAVITS
Helo
ReplyDeleteThis is Awesome !
Check it my Blog
sharemylesson
babelcube
yoo.rs
hearthis.at
abbreviation