IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE TEHSIL

TAXILA.

1. Malik Hasrat Zaman

2. Bilal Umar
Both sons of Malik Muhammad Muslim
3. Nadeem S/o late Malik Muhammad Taj,
All R/o Kolian, Tehsil Taxila District Rawalpindi.

…Plaintiffs.
Versus
1. Muhammad Asif S/o Muhammad Aslam
2. Kashif Ali
3. Hammad Ali
Both sons of Muhammad Asif
All R/o Kolian, Tehsil Taxila District Rawalpindi.

....Defendants.

SUIT FOR PERMANENT/MANDATORY INJUNCTION.

Plaintiffs respectfully states as under: -

1. That grandfather of plaintiffs namely Muhammad Afsar

S/o Imam Din was owner in possession of landed

property measuring 25-19-00 located in Khewat/Khtooni

No. 34, Khasra Nos. 480-494-497 Mouza Kolian Tehsil

Taxila. The said Muhammad Afsar has passed away,

 however, in revenue record, he is still owner. It is added

that father of plaintiffs No. 1-2 Muhammad Muslim is

alive while father of plaintiff No. 3 namely Muhammad

Taj has already passed away.

2. That a lane leads from HMC Road (Taxila) towards village

Kolian (U.C Garhi Afghanan) which has been built under

development programme of local government. Approved

width of the lane is 12 feet. Earlier it was un-paved path-

way for almosr 50 years which was made macadam in

2015 (hereinafter referred as said road). It may be

relevant to mention here that at the time of concreting

the path-way, defendant No. 1 claimed that his landed

property is being consumed in construction of the road

upon which plaintiff No. 1 paid him a sum of Rs.

102,000/- to remove an obstacle in a matter of public

interest. Later on, it revealed that no land of defendant

No. 1 was consumed in the said road and he received the

amount deceitfully.

2. That after some distance from HMC road, a small-bridge

is also built.

3. That defendants No. 2-3 are owners in possession of land

in the start of said road, which land has been transferred

by defendant No. 1 in their name. Upon, the said land,

 defendant No. 1 is constructing a residential house in

such a manner that main entrance gate of the house

would be opened towards the road.

4. That apparently, defendant No. 1 is placing shade in the

road and he would also make a steep for entry of his car

in the house and all such steps of defendant would

lessen width of said road to the extent of at least 02 feet.

5. That as explained earlier, vast landed property of

plaintiffs is also linked with the same road and there is

no alternate way for the plaintiffs for access to their land

except the said road. So, in case of lessening the width of

said road, it would not be utilized for heavy vehicles

carrying building material, grain etc.

6. That plaintiffs have requested the defendants

(Particularly No. 1) to avoid constructions leading to

decrease width of said road such as placing gate, shade

and steep towards the road but the defendant is insistent

and is not ready to accede to the genuine submissions of

plaintiffs. In this connection, plaintiff No. 1 also moved

an application to the A.C Taxila but no fruitful result till

date.

6. That if the defendants are not restrained from

constructing shade and steep towards the said road &

 placing gate (to be opened towards road), the plaintiffs

would suffer irreparable loss.

7. That cause of action arose to the plaintiffs against the

defendants for the first time when defendants started

constructing shade/steep towards road & placing gate

and lastly 02 days before on final refusal of defendants to

refrain from the steps leading to lessen the width of road

i.e making the impugned shade/steep, installing the gate

towards road-side and is continued.

8. That the parties reside within the territorial limits of

Tehsil Taxila and said road locates in the same vicinity;

cause of action also arose here; therefore, this learned

court has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter.

9. That value of suit for the purpose of court fee and

jurisdiction is fixed at Rs. 5,000/- exempted from court

fee.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that a decree for

permanent injunction restraining the defendants

from constructing any shade & steep towards the

road, erecting the gate to be opened towards road;

and raising any sort of constructions leading to

lessen the width of said road by anyway; for

mandatory injunction directing the defendants to

 remove/demolish the constructions so far made

which lead to minimize the width of said road; be

passed in favor of plaintiffs and against the

defendants with costs throughout. Any other relief

which this honorable court may deem appropriate

in circumstances; also be awarded to the plaintiffs.

…Plaintiffs.
Through: -

FARHANA QAMAR RANA,

Advocate High Court.

NABEELA IRSHAD RAJA,

Advocate.
Verification: -
Verified on oath at Taxila on 17-07-2018 that contents of the
suit are true and correct to the best of plaintiff’s knowledge
and belief.

…Plaintiffs.
 IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE TEHSIL
TAXILA.

Malik Hasrat Zaman etc V/S Muhammad Asif etc

SUIT FOR PERMANENT/MANDATORY INJUNCTION.

APPLICATION U.O. XXXIX (R-1&2) & SECTION 151 CPC.

Respectfully submitted: -

1. That applicants have filed the captioned suit before this

Honorable Court today, contents of which may kindly be

read and treated as integral part of this application.

2. That applicants have got prima facie a strong case and

there is every likelihood of their success in the matter.

3. That balance of convenience also lies in favor of

applicants/plaintiffs.

4. That if temporary injunction is not passed in favor of

applicants/plaintiffs, they would suffer irreparable loss

and their suit shall also be rendered in-fructuous.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that

respondents/defendants may kindly be

restrained from installing gate opening towards

road, constructing shade/steep towards the

road minimizing width of the road by anyway,

till the final disposal of captioned suit and they

 may also be directed to remove all the

constructions so far made which lessened

width of the road by anyway.

….Applicants/Plaintiffs
Through: -

FARHANA QAMAR RANA,

Advocate High Court.

NABEELA IRSHAD RAJA,

Advocate.
Dated 17-07-2018.
 IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE TEHSIL
TAXILA.

Malik Hasrat Zaman etc V/S Muhammad Asif etc

SUIT FOR PERMANENT/MANDATORY INJUNCTION.

APPLICATION U.O.XXXIX (R-1&2) & SECTION 151 CPC.

AFFIDAVIT

I, Malik Hasrat Zaman S/o Malik Muhammad Muslim, R/o

Kolian, Tehsil Taxila District Rawalpindi, do hereby solemnly
declare and affirm that contents of my accompanying
application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge
and belief and nothing has been concealed therein.

…Deponent

Verified on oath at Taxila on 17-07-2018 that contents of the

above Affidavit are true and correct to the best of Deponent’s
knowledge, belief and information and nothing has been
concealed there from, neither any part thereof is false.

…Deponent