1. SYED HASSAN AZHAR RIZVI, J. --- This is an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 & 2 r/w Section 151, C.P.C. Filed by the plaintiff seeking restraining order against the defendants of any body acting on their behalf to sell, mortgage, transfer or do any other act regarding the said property and creating third party interested till the final disposal of the suit. The application is duly supported by an affidavit of plaintiff Dr. Syed Mishab-uz-Zafar.
2. Mr. Riazuddin learned counsel for the plaintiff in support of application for grant of injunction has agued that plaintiff and defendant No. 1 were entered into a sale agreement in respect of Plot No. 135/1, Khayaban-e-Muslim, Phase-VI, D.H.A., Karachi and the total sale consideration of the said plot was agreed to Rs. 1,50,00,000/-. The defendant No. 1 paid Rs. 15,00,000/- as token money to the plaintiff for which the plaintiff issued a receipt and the remaining balance of Rs. 1,35,00,000/- was due and payable on 14.4.2005 at the time of transfer of plot in the name of defendant No. 1 in the record of Defence Officer's Housing Authority. Karachi. He argued that on 14.4.2005 when the plaintiff asked the defendant No. 1 to pay the remaining balance the defendant No. 1 to pay the remaining balance the defendant No. 1 made a lame excuse that due to some personal reasons she could not arrange the remaining balance and requested the plaintiff to transfer the said plot in her name on the promise that she will pay the outstanding as and when demanded by the plaintiff.
3. The plaintiff being dealing with a women honoured her words and transferred the said plot in her name. He contended that defendant No 1 made a declaration that in case she fails to pay the outstanding balance of the said plot to the plaintiff, the token money of Rs. 15,00,000/- shall be forfeited and the plaintiff would have all rights of the ownership of the said plot. The defendant No. 1 also executed a promissory note, in which she had admitted the fact that she has to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 1,35,00,000/- to the plaintiff being the remaining balance of the said plot.
4. He stated that plaintiff repeatedly requested the defendant No. 1 pay the balance amount of consideration, but she delayed the matter on one pretext or the other and not paid the same till date. He, therefore, prayed for grant of listed application.
5. Counter-affidavit to the listed application has been filed by the defendant No. 1. Mr. Farhatullah learned counsel for the defendant No. 1 urged that the application is not maintainable as no cause of action accrued to the plaintiff against the defendant No. 1. He urged that the suit has been filed on bogus, fake and forged documents and the plaintiff has not approached to this Court with clean hands. He further contended that the agreement to sell was concluded and acted upon; it has become past and closed transaction. Learned counsel has referred Sale Agreement Annexure "A" to the plaint and stated that there is cutting on the date of stamp paper, font are different and signature of the defendant on the same is also forged; Declaration on which the purchased date of stamp paper is 15.4.2005 and signature on the same is 14.6.2005; promissory note and receipt are also forged. Learned counsel also 'referred documents attached alongwith the written statement viz: Receipts, Transfer Affidavit, Two agreements of sale and letter dated 6.12.2005. He contended that all the documents filed by the plaintiff alongwith the memo. Of plaint are false, engineered, fabricated and managed documents. He, therefore, prayed that the instant application is liable to be dismissed.
6. Thus, I have come to a conclusion that the controversy involved in the suit cannot be resolved without recording of evidence. The plaintiff is made out of prima facie case in his favour to justify grant of injunction. Balance of convenience also appears to be in favour of the plaintif who shall suffer irreparable loss if injunction is refused. Resultantly, this application is granted and the defendants are restrained to sell, mortgage, transfer and create third party interest till the final disposal of the suit.
7. Out of the pleadings of the parties, following issues are framed:--
(1) Whether the suit is barred under Sections 54 & 56 of the Specific Relief Act and Section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882?
(2) Whether the suit has been filed on bogus, tailored, fake and forged documents? If so, its effect?
(3) Whether the defendant No. 1 could not pay the balance sale consideration of Rs. 1,35,00,000/-as per term of sale agreement dated 13.4.2005 and she executed a Declaration dated 14.4.2005 in favour of the plaintiff?
(4) Whether the plaintiff without receiving the balance sale consideration transferred the plot in suit in favour of the defendant No. 1 in the record-of-right of D.H.A., Karachi?
(5) Whether the defendant No. 1 as per declaration dated 14.4.2005, has failed to honour her commitment to pay balance sale consideration and the plaintiff has legal right of ownership in the plot in suit and entitle to transfer the plot in his name?
(6) Whether the defendant No. 1 has not paid the balance sale consideration and executed promissory note dated 14.4.2005 in favour of the plaintiff?
(7) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the plot of suit?
(8) What should the decree be?
8. Documents, list of witnesses and . Application for commission, if any, to be filed within one month. . revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.