That the dispute arises from being aggrieved by the mala fide and unlawful actions/omissions of the Defendants, as the Plaintiff—our Client—being the lawful owner of an immovable property measuring 600 square yards situated in P & T Cooperative Housing Society Korangi (“Society”), Karachi (hereinafter referred to as the “Suit Property”), is being deprived of its peaceful possession and ownership.
In view of the aforementioned actions and omissions of the Defendants, the Plaintiff filed Criminal Complaint No. 161/2021 (“Complaint”), under Sections 3 and 4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The learned XIIth Additional District & Sessions Judge at Karachi (East), vide Order dated 03.11.2021, directed the SHO, Police Station KIA, to conduct an inquiry/investigation pertaining to the ownership of the Suit Property. Thereafter, in compliance with the Order dated 03.11.2021, the SHO, Police Station KIA recorded the statement of the attorney of the Plaintiff and also issued notices under Section 160 Cr.P.C. to Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.5.
Subsequently, the SHO, Police Station KIA, submitted a Compliance Report dated 03.12.2021, wherein it was found that the Plaintiff is the lawful owner of the Suit Property, and that Defendant No.4, in collusion with Defendant No.1, had raised illegal construction over the Suit Property.
Nonetheless, Defendant No.1 (Respondent No.5 in the Complaint), on the date of hearing, filed objections, contending that the ABN Case Judgment and the Order passed in the Appeal were recalled and set aside by Defendant No.3 vide Order dated 30.01.2017. It is pertinent to highlight that this was the first time the Plaintiff, through his counsel, was apprised of this alleged fact, which was also recorded by the learned XIIth Additional District & Sessions Judge at Karachi (East) in the order passed in the Complaint.
It is important to note that the proceedings after the Order passed in the Appeal dated 12.03.2013 are completely arbitrary, illegal, and unlawful, as the Plaintiff/our Client had no notice of such proceedings, nor was he represented in person or through counsel. As such, he was not given the opportunity to defend the proceedings to which he was a party, despite the fact that the ABN Case Judgment and the Order passed in the Appeal upheld the ownership of the Plaintiff with respect to the Suit Property.
It must be noted that the aforementioned proceedings referenced in Paragraph No.10 were undertaken solely by the Defendants to challenge the ABN Case Judgment and the Order passed in the Appeal—i.e., to challenge the Orders that upheld the Plaintiff’s legal title to the Suit Property. As such, the primary aggrieved party as a result of impugning/challenging the ABN Case Judgment and the Order passed in the Appeal was the Plaintiff.
Our Client, through our firm, has engaged Barrister Junaid Ahmed in relation to the aforementioned matter, and the matter is now sub-judice before the Honorable Civil Courts of Karachi.