P L D 2011 Karachi 22 (PLP)

AQEEL AHMAD ABBASI, J.

Office has wrongly listed this application, which was already granted on 23-7-2010.

2. Plaintiff namely Mrs. Shahnaz Shuja wife of Ahmed Shuja is present along with her counsel, whereas Mrs. Rubina Imtiaz claiming to be duly constituted attorney of defendants Nos.3 and 4 is also present along with her counsel. This is an application under Order XXIII, Rule 3, C.P.C. read with section 151, C.P.C., which is duly signed by the plaintiff and the attorney of defendants Nos.3 and 4, whereas defendants Nos.1 and 2 have not signed the listed application. Plaintiffs have filed the instant suit claiming to be the only legal heirs of one Ahmed Shuja and have sought declaration to the effect that they are entitled for their respective shares per inheritance in respect of the properties mentioned in para. 7 of the plaint which belong to Ahmed Shuja, whose whereabouts are stated to be not known for the last about eight years. Reference to Article 124 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 has been made whereas reliance has been placed in the case of Lal Hussain v. Mst. Sadiq and another 2001 SCMR 1036. From perusal of the record, it appears that the plaintiffs have filed copies of the properties as mentioned in para. 7 of the plaint, copy of Nikhanama showing the plaintiff No.1 as wife of Ahmed Shuja, copy of "B" form showing plaintiffs Nos.2 and 3 as son and daughter of Ahmed Shuja and copy of F.I.R. along with newspapers A cuttings wherein news regarding kidnapping of an architect Ahmed Shuja were published. It appears that defendant No.3, who is the mother of Ahmed Shuja has filed her written statement wherein, the claim of the plaintiffs appears to have not been denied except entitlement of defendant No.4, who is the brother of Ahmed Shuja is denied. It is further stated that defendant No.3 being the real mother of Ahmed Shuja is also entitled to the inheritance of her son Ahmed Shuja as per Shariah. It further appears that in para. 5 of the written statement, defendant No.3 has objected to the valuation of both the properties made by the plaintiff in para. 5 and has also referred to some building and bank accounts which per defendant No.3 were also left behind by her son Ahmed Shuja and have allegedly been appropriated by the plaintiffs. Mr. Asghar Malik, learned counsel for defendant No.2 has submitted that compromise application has not been signed by defendants Nos.1 and 2 as they have no concern with the instant suit which relates to claim of private parties inter se. Learned counsel submitted that the said properties are still in the name of Ahmed Shuja on the record of defendant No.2. He has further submitted that he has no objection if instant compromise application is granted. Keeping in view hereinabove fact; and the ratio of judgment cited by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs I am of the view that there appears no impediment in the grant of compromise application. Accordingly, the listed application is granted and the suit is decreed in terms of compromise with no order as to costs, with the clarification that in view of available record, averments of the parties and in the absence of any other claimant, the plaintiffs and defendant No.3 are entitled to their respective shares as per Shariah in the immovable properties of Ahmed Shuja as mentioned in para.7 of the plaint. However, this will be without prejudice to the right and interest of any third party in respect of the properties mentioned hereinabove. S.A.K./S-89/K Suit decreed.