Sampel of an Affidavit using in Courts (In Pakistan)

AFFIDAVIT


I, Ghulam Nabi s/o Ghulam Rasool, r/o House No.AA-1001 Mohallah Workshapi, Rawalpindi, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the accompanying application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.


…Deponent
VERIFICATION

Verified on oath at Rawalpindi on this 15th day of March 2010 that the contents of my said Affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief and nothing has been concealed therefrom.
…Deponent

Written Statement in Suit for Recovery of Possession before Civil Judge (In Pakistan)

IN THE COURT OF SYED FARRUKH HUSSAIN SHAMSI, CIVIL JUDGE, RAWALPINDI


Farrukh Waseem V/s Mst. Surriya Perveen etc


(Suit for Recovery of Possession)


WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT NO.6


PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS


1. That the plaintiff has got no cause of action to file the instant suit, because the house in dispute bearing No.382-B Sector I, Khayaban-e-Sirsyed was in the name of Mehmood Ahmed who mortgaged the said house to answering defendant and gave away possession of said house to answering defendant and now the tenants of answering defendant are in possession of the said house.
2. That the present suit is not maintainable under Sec 10 CPC and it must be stayed because a suit for specific performance for the said house is pending adjudication in Civil Court, Rawalpindi.
3. That the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands hence he is not entitled for any relief.
4. That proper court fee has not been affixed hence the suit be returned.
ON FACTS

1. Para No.1 is incorrect hence denied, in fact suit property was allotted vide No.382-B/SI/1374 dated 08-05-79 issued at 13-02-82 (Copy is attached herewith)
2. Para No.2 is incorrect hence denied.
3. Para No.3 denied being want of knowledge.
4. Para No.4 is incorrect hence denied, allotment letter dated 13-02-82 in name of Mehmood Ahmed is still in force.
5. Para No.5 is incorrect being want of knowledge.
6. Para No.6 is denied being want of knowledge.
7. Para No.7 is incorrect hence denied.
8. Para No.8 is incorrect hence denied.
9. Para No.9 is incorrect hence denied.
10. Para No10 is incorrect hence denied.
11. Para No.11 is incorrect hence denied.
12. Para No.12 is incorrect hence denied. Plaintiff has no cause of action to file the instant suit.
13. Para No.13 is legal.
14. Para No.14 is incorrect, the suit land is not properly assessed hence the maximum court should be affixed.


PRAYER

Under the above mentioned circumstances, It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that suit of the plaintiff may very kindly be dismissed with cost.

Defendant No.6
Through

COUNSEL

HABEAS PETITION UNDER SECTION 491 CR.P.C FOR RECOVERY OF DETENUES before Sessions Judge (In Pakistan)

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE, RAWALPINDI


In the matter of:

Sultan Muhammad son of Sooba Khan, resident of House No. ZB-2, Street No.30, Alam Abad, Dhoke Hassu, Rawalpindi.

…Petitioner
VERSUS

1. Raja Muhammad Shabbir son of name not known to the petitioner.
2. Raja Shahzad Shabbir son of Raja Muhammad Shabbir.
3. Yasir Shabbir son of Raja Muhammad Shabbir.
4. Tazeema Shabbir wife of Raja Muhammad Shabbir.
All residents of Carriage Factory, House No.ZB-3G, Mohallah Rajgan, Dhoke Hassu, Rawalpindi.
5. S.H.O, P.S Gunjmandi, Rawalpindi.

…Respondents

HABEAS PETITION UNDER SECTION 491 CR.P.C FOR RECOVERY OF DETENUES (1) RIZWANA BIBI (2) ZOHAIB AGED ABOUT 4-YEARS FROM THE ILLEGAL, IMPROPER CONFINEMENT OF RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4

Respectfully Sheweth!

1. Brief facts giving rise to the instant petition are that; the petitioner is unfortunate father of detenues namely Rizwana Bibi and maternal grandfather of detenue No.2 Zobaib.
2. That the daughter of the petitioner was married with one Raja Shahzad Shabbir and out of the wedlock, detenue No.2 was born but later on, Raja Shahzad Shabbir divorced the daughter of the petitioner and after getting divorce, she started living in Dar-ul-Amaan along with her son / detenue No.2. She was living in Dar-ul-Amaan since 21-07-09. (Copy of the application on behalf of detenue No.1 regarding sending to Dar-ul-Amaan, Rawalpindi is attached herewith for the kind perusal by this Honourable Court.
3. That the petitioner used to pay visit to Dar-ul-Amaan and see his real daughter and maternal grandson after 21-07-2009.
4. That previously, when the petitioner tried to see his real daughter in Dar-ul-Amaan, Rawalpindi, he was shocked to know that someone has taken away the detenues and on the search of the petitioner, it transpired that the ex-mother-in-law (respondent No.4) of the detenue No.1 trapped the detenues and took them with her on 12-12-2009. (Copy of the application along with statements of the respondent No.4 and that of detenues are annexed herewith for the kind perusal by this Honourable Court)
5. That when the petitioner approached to the respondents No.1 & 4, they flatly denied to take the dentenues back from the Dar-ul-Amaan and shown their unawareness about the missing of the detenues from the Dar-ul-Amaan, Rawalpindi.
6. That since previously, the family intrigues prevailed between both the families, therefore, the petitioner fairly believes and understands that the respondent No.4 managed to get the custody of the detenues and after getting their custody, she has sent them to unknown place only to avoid the meeting of the petitioner with them.
7. That the petitioner also apprehends that the respondents would cause severe damage to the persons and properties of the detenues if they remained in illegal and improper custody of the respondents No.1 to 4 due to the previous enmity.
8. That the petitioner fairly believes that being the real father of detenue No.1 and maternal grandfather of detenue No.2 has every right to see and keep their custody which is legal and proper.
9. That the petitioner also apprehends a danger to the persons and properties of the detenuues at the hands of respondents No.1 to 4.
10. That the petitioner has time and again requested the respondents No.1 to 4 to send the detenues with him but they flatly refused to accede the genuine request of the petitioner, hence this petition.
11. That the petitioner has no other alternate, efficacious, expeditious and less expensive remedy except to invoke the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, hence this petition.

PRAYER

It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that the instant petition may kindly be allowed and the detenues may very graciously be recovered through appointment of bailiff with the help of respondent No.5 and the bailiff be directed to produce the detenues before this August Court and after their production, their persons may graciously be handed over to the petitioner which is in the best interest of the justice and for that purpose, the petitioner is ready to pay the requisite bailiff fee as per direction of this August Court.
Any other relief which this Honourable Court deems fit and proper, also be awarded to the petitioner.

Petitioner
Through
COUNSEL

Petition for Cancellation of Bail before High Court (In Pakistan)

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, RAWALPINDI BENCH, RAWALPINDI

Crl. Misc No. BC/2010
In the matter of:

Khaqaan Danial s/o Allah Ditta, r/o Upper Aliot, Tehsil Murree, District Rawalpindi.

…Petitioner
VERSUS

1. Muhammad Usman s/o Muhammad Zakir, Caste Abbasi, r/o Upper Aliot, Murree District Rawalpindi.
2. The State.
…Respondents

PETITION UNDER SECTION 497(5) Cr.P.C FOR THE CANCELLATION OF BAIL IN CASE FIR NO. 499 DATED 18-09-2007, OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 302/24 PPC REGISTERED AT P.S MURREE, DISTRICT RAWALPINDI

Respectfully Sheweth!

1. That the petitioner is an unfortunate father of Tasleem Akhtar (deceased) and complainant of aforementioned FIR. The brief facts leading to the instant petition are that on 18-09-07, respondent No.1 brutally assassinated the young daughter of the petitioner with the help of his mother and sister. (Copy of FIR is annexed herewith as Annexure-A)
2. That the respondent No.1 filed his bail after arrest which was entrusted to the court of Mr. Khalid Mehmood Ranjha, the learned ASJ Rawalpindi who was pleased to grant his bail on the ground of tender-age while relying upon a fabricated school leaving certificate and that of NADRA record. The respondent No.1 was allowed bail on 21-11-08. (Copy of bail granting order is annexed herewith as Annexure-B)
3. That during the course of trial, the respondent No.1 moved an application for his trial under Juvenile Justice System which was objected by the prosecution and the learned trial judge was pleased to send the matter to DHQ Rawalpindi for holding of ossification test of respondent No.1.
4. That on the direction of the learned ASJ, a medical board was convened for ossification test of the respondent No.1 and the medical board submitted their report bearing Sr. No.262 dated 29-04-09 and hold the age of the respondent No.1 between 22 – 25 years at the time of occurrence.
5. That the respondent No.1 was allowed bail after arrest merely on the ground of tender-age (less than 18 years) whereas the ossification test (age-determination) reveals that the age of the respondent No.1 as minimum 20-years at the time of occurrence i.e 18-09-2007. (Copy of age assessment report dated 29-04-09 is annexed herewith as Annexure-C)
6. That after getting the bail after arrest granted by the learned ASJ Rawalpindi, the respondent No.1 always misused the concession of bail and at times, criminally, illegally and forcibly trespassed into the house of the petitioner and threatened the petitioner, his wife and daughter of dire consequences which includes murder of the petitioner and his family members regarding which the matter was reported to Numberdar of the area who also verified the occurrence and submitted his report on 11-12-2008 which is also available in Judicial File.
7. That the matter does not end here, the respondent No.1 continued threatening the petitioner and his family members, resultantly, the petitioner has filed a petition U/S 22-A and 22-B of Cr.P.C and sought the indulgence of learned ASJ for getting a criminal case registered against the respondent No.1 and the same was entrusted to Mr. Sajjad Hussain Sindhar, learned ASJ who disposed off the petition while giving a direction to the concerned police on 13-06-09 and consequently and ultimately a FIR bearing No.373 dated 25-07-09 offence U/S 506 PPC was registered at P.S Murree District Rawalpindi against respondent No.1 (Copy of petition U/S 22-A along with order dated 13-06-09 and FIR bearing No.373 is annexed herewith as Annexure-D)
8. That the heinous offence of murder was committed by respondent No.1 who is a hardened and disparate criminal, was not entitle to any concession or grace therefore, the grant of bail not only prejudice to the prosecution but also the prosecution witnesses are under pressure, threat and coercion at the hands of respondent No.1.
9. That the act of respondent No.1 of threatening the petitioner and his family members, amounts to temper the prosecution evidence and the prosecution witnesses are under pressure, coercion and apprehends a danger to their lives at the hands of respondent No.1.
10. That the petitioner filed petition Under Section 497(5) Cr.P.C for cancellation of the bail of respondent No.1 before the court of learned Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi which was declined vide order dated 29-10-2009 by Mr. Sajjad Hussain Sindhar, the learned ASJ Rawalpindi, hence this petition. (Copy of petition along with order dated 29-10-09 is annexed herewith as Annexure-E)
11. That the petitioner seeks the cancellation of bail of respondent No.1 inter-alia on the followings:-

GROUNDS

a. That the learned ASJ declined the cancellation petition of the petitioner on surmises and conjectures.
b. That there is sufficient material on record to connect the respondent No.1 with the commission of crime and specific role was attributed to him in the FIR.
c. That the respondent No.1 is nominated in the FIR with specific role, hence the order dated 29-10-2009 of the learned ASJ Rawalpindi is without any lawful justification.
d. That the order passed by learned ASJ Rawalpindi is illegal, arbitrary one and against the norms of the natural justice.
e. That the learned ASJ Rawalpindi did not consider the valuable evidence available on the record.
f. That there is no malafide on the part of the present petitioner and enmity of the police with the respondent No.1 was pointed out, hence the respondent No.1 is not entitled to any concession of bail.
g. That there is reasonable chance for tampering with prosecution evidence by the respondent No.1, thus he is not entitled to any concession of bail.
h. That there is the reasonable chance of absconsion of the respondent No.1.
i. That the learned ASJ Rawalpindi also ignored the all other important aspect of the case, which is necessary for rejection of the bail.
j. That the respondent No.1 is misusing the grant of bail and continuously threatening the petitioner for dire consequences and also put undue pressure upon the petitioner for the compromise.
k. That if the bail granting order passed by the learned ASJ Rawalpindi is not recalled, the petitioner shall suffer an irreparable loss.

In the above mentioned circumstances, it is therefore, most respectfully prayed that the instant petition may kindly be accepted and bail granting order dated 21-11-2008 to the respondent No.1 may kindly be recalled and post arrest bail granted to him may kindly be cancelled which is in the interest of the justice.
Petitioner
Through

COUNSEL

Exemption Petition in Writ Petition before High Court (In Pakistan)

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, RAWALPINDI BENCH, RAWALPINDI

C.M No. /2010
In
Crl. Misc No. B/2010
In the matter of:

Karam Ellahi V/s The State

EXEMPTION PETITION
Respectfully Sheweth!
1. That the petitioner has filed the above titled bail petition before this Honourable Court, the contents of which may kindly be read as integral part of this petition.
2. That the petitioner has not able to produce attested copies of certain documents along with the aforementioned petition before this Honourable Court.

In the circumstances, it is therefore, respectfully prayed that the instant petition may kindly be accepted and the petitioner may graciously be exempted from filing of certified copies of certain documents along with the captioned bail petition.
Petitioner
Through
COUNSEL

Post Arrest Bail before High Court (In Pakistan)

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, RAWALPINDI BENCH, RAWALPINDI

Crl. Misc No. B/2010
In the matter of:

Karam Ellahi son of Pohla Khan, resident of House No.F-459, Islamila Abad, Wah Cantt, Tehsil Taxila, District Rawalpindi (Presently confined in Central Jail, Adiala, Rawalpindi)

…Petitioner
VERSUS

The State. …Respondent

PETITION UNDER SECTION 497 Cr.P.C FOR THE GRANT OF POST ARREST BAIL IN CASE FIR NO. 643 DATED 16-09-2009, OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 489-F PPC REGISTERED AT P.S WAH CANTT, DISTRICT RAWALPINDI

Respectfully Sheweth!

1. That the petitioner has been falsely and maliciously roped in this case due to ulterior motives by the complainant in connivance with local police and is confined in Central Jail, Adiala, Rawalpindi. (Attested copy of FIR along with better copy is annexed herewith as Annexure-A)
2. That the petitioner filed petition for bail after arrest in the court of Ellaqa Magistrate, P.S Wah Cantt, which was declined vide order dated 29-09-2009. (Attested copy of bail petition along with order dated 29-09-09 is annexed herewith as Annexure-B)
3. That the petitioner also filed petition for bail after arrest in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge at Taxila, District Rawalpindi, which too was declined vide order dated 09-10-2009. (Attested copy of bail petition along with order dated 09-10-09 is annexed herewith as Annexure-C)
4. That the petitioner seeks post arrest bail inter-alia on the following:-

GROUNDS

a. That the brief facts leading to the instant petition are that the petitioner entered into a Sale Agreement regarding land measuring 7-Kanals & 5-Marlas situated in Revenue Estate of Sagra Brahma comprising in Khasra No.531, 532 for total consideration of Rs.25,15,000/-. (Copy of Sale Agreement is annexed herewith as Annexure-D)
b. That later on, when it transpired to the petitioner that the subject matter (Land measuring 7-Kanals & 5-Marlas) was owned and possessed by one Faiz Alam and the complainant of the instant case i.e Khalid Mehmood has nothing to do with the land and in the first instance he objected the fraudulent conduct of the complainant in a Jirga where he conceded his misrepresentations and requested the petitioner to directly execute the sale deed in his favour by the said Faiz Alam and the petitioner executed sale deed bearing No.4323/1 dated 30-06-2009 duly registered with Sub Registrar Taxila, District Rawalpindi after making the payment of whole consideration amount to the said executant i.e. Faiz Alam. (Copy of registered Sale Deed is annexed herewith as Annexure-E)
c. That after the execution of sale deed in favour of the petitioner’s party, the petitioner asked the complainant for returning back the cheques issued by him but he lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other and assured the petitioner that he would not present the same in the bank nor would proceed against the petitioner in any manner.
d. That the petitioner fairly believes and understands that after prevailing human greed upon the complainant, he in order to usurp and grab more money from the petitioner, presented the same in the concerned bank and after getting dishonoured the same, implicated the petitioner in a false, frivolous and fabricated instant case.
e. That the order passed by the courts below are against the law and facts of the case.
f. That there is sufficient material available leading the petitioner’s innocence and his false implication in the instant case.
g. That the order passed by the courts below are illegal, arbitrary one and against all the norms of the natural justice.
h. That the malafide of the petitioner is crystal clear from the averments of the FIR that too in the light of the sale agreement and that of registered sale deed.
i. That the investigation of the case has been completed and the petitioner is no more required for further investigation.
j. That it is a case of further inquiry and probe and it is yet to be seen at the trial stage that which of the version is to be correct.
k. That the petitioner is the first offender in the alleged occurrence. The petitioner is not a previous convict and having no criminal record. In the said circumstances of the instant case, the petitioner is entitled for the concession of bail.
l. That the offence mentioned in the FIR does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C.
m. That the petitioner is a victim of malicious prosecution and have no concern whatsoever with the alleged offence.
n. That the bail cannot be withheld as punishment to the petitioner.
o. That the petitioner belongs to a respectable family, previously non-convict and ready to furnish the bail bonds to the satisfaction of this Honourable Court.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the instant bail petition may kindly be accepted and petitioner may kindly be granted bail after arrest till the final disposal of the case.

Petitioner
Through

COUNSEL

Model of Written Statement of any Suit (In Pakistan)

IN THE COURT OF MISS UZMA AHSIN, CIVIL JUDGE, RAWALPINDI


In the matter of:


Sheikh Muhammad Tariq V/s Saher Mehmood


(Suit for the Recovery of Rs.90,000/-)


WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT



Respectfully Sheweth!


PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS


1. That the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands hence the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed.
2. That the plaintiff has suppressed material facts from this Honourable Court and wants to gain undue benefits hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.
3. That the plaintiff has filed the instant suit just to pressurize, humiliate and harass the answering defendant hence the instant suit is liable to be dismissed.
4. That the affidavit annexed by the plaintiff with the instant suit is totally bogus, frivolous, fake and self made document and having no value in the eyes of law.
5. That the defendant never ever affixed any kind of thumb impression on the affidavit given by the plaintiff before this Honourable Court and actually the plaintiff himself affixed the thumb impression and wrongly stated that the same was done by the defendant.
6. That the defendant is liable to get special cost U/S 35-A of CPC.

ON FACTS

1. Para No. 1 is admitted to the extent that the defendant was sent through Al-Qasim Recruitment Agency but neither he knows Sheikh Tariq / defendant nor taken any money from said Sheikh Tariq, hence denied.
2. Para No.2 is not admitted, hence denied.
3. Para No.3 is not admitted. Actually the owner of Al-Qasim Recruitment Center sent the defendant on work visa to Malaysia, he took away Rs.250,000/- from the defendant hence the instant para is totally incorrect and denied.
4. Para No.4 is not admitted. The plaintiff never asked the defendant to pay the said amount and the alleged affidavit was actually made by the plaintiff himself and the defendant has no concern whatsoever with the plaintiff at all.
5. Para No.5 is incorrect hence denied. The plaintiff never asked the defendant to pay the said amount so the suit of the plaintiff is false, frivolous and self contradictory, the defendant has never threatened the plaintiff at all.
6. Para No.6 is incorrect hence denied. There is no question of damages whatsoever.
7. Para No.7 is not admitted. The plaintiff has no cause of action to file the instant suit against the defendant.
8. Para No.8 is admitted to the extent of jurisdiction, rest is denied.
9. Para No.9 is admitted to the extent of court fee, rest is denied.


PRAYER

In the above mentioned facts and circumstances, it is therefore, most respectfully prayed that the suit filed by the plaintiff may kindly be dismissed with cost.


Defendant
Through
COUNSEL