Formats of civil drafting

EXIM BANK AGRICULTURAL
UNIVERSITY BANGLADESH
OPEN BOOK EXAMINATION
Md. Arifin Arif
LLBA2018000559
ANSWER TO THE QUESTION NO.1
A) TEMPORARY INJUNCTION
Injunction originates from English Jurisprudence and is derived from French word
“injungere” which means “to join.” An injunction is an order of the court which makes a
person to do or abstain him/ her from doing an act that is required for justice, absence of
which will result in contradiction of good faith and conscience. Injunction is granted basically
for restoring the rights of a party whose such rights have been violated. It is granted when
there is no remedy as to provide such party with neither monetary nor compensatory
damages. The principles of Equity and Natural Justice are followed while granting an
injunction.
Under section 53 of The Specific Relief Act, 1877; Temporary injunctions are such as are to
continue until a specified time, or until the further order of the Court. They may be granted at
any period of a suit, and are regulated by the Code of Civil Procedure.
Objective:
The purpose of the interim or temporary order is to protect the plaintiff from injury by
claiming his right which he could not adequately compensate in damages recoverable in the
action if the uncertainty is resolved in him favour at the hearing.
Ingredients:
The granting of interim injunction is based on three factors, which are prima facie case,
irreparable loss and balance of convenience. The court explained these as;
•There is a serious disputed question raised in the court and that there is an act on the
facts before the court probability that he is entitled to the relief the plaintiff /
defendant.
•The court’s interference is necessary to protect the people from some of the types of
injury. In other words, irreparable injury or danger would arise before the legal
right set at trial.

•That comparative hardship at malice or inconvenience that is likely to occur due to the
withholding of the command will be greater than it probably would be granted.
Illustration
‘A’ is a retailer with a food processing plant in Bandra, Mumbai, India. In front of his
factory, one of the adjacent factory workers (‘B’) started dumping waste, which eventually
led to the food being spoiled. ‘A’ filed ‘B’, in which the court agreed to a temporary
injunction, which prevented ‘B’ from dumping more waste.
•From this illustration, it is clear that ‘A’ suffers from a significant problem as it
indirectly affects its livelihood. Therefore, it is clear that granting an order is
important.
•In the above illustration, no matter who reads it, it is a common statement that the
plaintiff is harming, which outweighs the scale of justice. Therefore, it is clear that
the ease of balance towards the Plaintiff is tilted.
•In a situation where the court did not agree to grant the temporary order in favour of
the Plaintiff, the food products in his factory would be destroyed, thereby affecting
his income and causing great loss. Therefore, it is clear that the plaintiff would
have suffered irreparable damage to his goods.
Cases
In the matter of Agricultural Produce Market Committee v. Girdharbhai Ramjibhai
Chhaniyara, it was held, an interim injunction can only be granted if a person who wants to
obtain an order has a closed right that is capable of being enforced by order. The plaintiff in a
suit for partition is entitled to a temporary injunction even against his fellow splitters to
protect his protection owned when living exclusively in the warehouses and doing business
on it, this was held in I P Bhankanarayana v. PRajeshwar Rao. When a foreign buyer
threatens jointly with members of the temporary order from an undivided family should be
refrained from taking possession even if such an order equals the expulsion of the foreign
buyer.
In the case of Nawab Mir Barkat Ali v. Nawab Zulfiquar, the court laid down certain
principles for granting interim order of which the court must be satisfied:
•that the applicant’s case is made prima facie to go in the trial court.
•that the contention should be bona fide between the parties and also on which side the
balance of convenience will lie in the event of success, if there is no grant of
injunction.
•that the plaintiff has suffered irreparable loss.
•and interim injunction is not allowed where permanent injunction cannot be granted.
Conclusion

A temporary injunction is a preliminary relief that seeks to protect the subject in the existing
condition, without the defendant’s interference or threat. It is intended to protect the plaintiff
from disposing of, or to destroy or damage his property (subject), or against any injury to the
plaintiff. The primary reason behind a temporary order is to protect the interests of an
individual or entity until the final decision is made. A temporary injunction, if granted,
remains for a specified period or until the court deems fit.
B) APPEAL
An appeal is a remedial concept determined as an individual’s right to seek justice against an
unjust decree/order via referring it to a Superior Court. Sections 96 to 99A; 107 to 108
& Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 deal with appeals from original decrees
known as First appeals.
Meaning of appeal
The term ‘appeal’ nowhere has been defined under the CPC. The Black’s Law Dictionary,
while construing the concept of ‘appeal’ in its most original and natural sense, explains it as
“the complaint to a superior court for an injustice done or error committed by an inferior one,
whose judgment or decision the Court above is called upon to correct or reverse. It is the
removal of a cause from a Court of inferior jurisdiction to one of superior jurisdiction, for the
purpose of obtaining a review and retrial”.
Essentials of appealing cases
An appeal is a proceeding where a higher forum reconsiders the decision of a lower forum,
on questions of law & fact with jurisdiction to confirm, reverse, modify the decision or
remand the matter to the lower forum for fresh decision in compliance of its directions. The
essentials of appealing cases can be narrowed down to 3 elements:
•A decree passed by a judicial/administrative authority;
•An aggrieved person, not necessarily a party to the original proceeding; and
•A reviewing body instituted for the purposes of entertaining such appeals.
Right to appeal
The right to appeal is a statutory & substantive one. The statutory nature of an appeal implies
that it has to be specifically conferred by a statute along with the operative appellate
machinery as opposed to the right to institute a suit, which is an inherent right. It is
substantive in the sense that it has to be taken prospectively unless provided otherwise by any
statute. This right could be waived off via an agreement, and if a party accepts the benefits
under a decree, it can be estopped from challenging its legality. However, an appeal accrues
to the law as found on the date of the institution of the original suit.

One right to appeal
Section 96 of the CPC provides that an aggrieved party to any decree, which was passed by a
Court while exercising its original jurisdiction, is conferred with at least one right to appeal to
a higher authority designated for this purpose, unless the provisions of any statute make an
exception for it. Section 97, 98 and 102 of the CPC enumerate certain conditions under which
no further appeal is permitted, hence attributing to a single right of appeal.
No right to appeal
No person has a right to appeal against a decision unless he is a party to the suit, except on
special leave of the Court. An essential element to be taken into account while considering
one’s right to appeal is whether such person is adversely affected by the decision/suit, which
is a question of fact to be determined in each case.
Who may appeal?
A regular appeal may be preferred by one of the following:
•Any party to the suit adversely affected by a decree, or if such party is dead, by his
legal representatives under Section 146;
•A transferee of the interest of such party, who so far as such interest is concerned, is
bound by the decree, provided his name is entered on the record of the suit;
•An auction purchaser may appeal against an order in execution setting aside the sale
on the ground of fraud;
•No other person, unless he is a party to the suit, is entitled to appeal under Section 96.
A person, who is not a party to the suit, may prefer an appeal from a decree/order if he’s
bound/aggrieved/prejudicially affected by it via special leave of the appellate Court.
Appeal by one plaintiff against another plaintiff
In Iftikhar Ahmed v. Syed Meherban Ali, it was concurred that if there exists a conflict of
interest between plaintiffs and it is necessary to resolve it via a Court to relieve the defendant,
and if it is in fact decided, it will operate on the lines of res judicata between co-plaintiffs in
the subsequent suit.
Appeal by one defendant against another defendant
The rule in a case where an appeal is preferred not against the originally opposite parties but
against a co-defendant on a question of law, it could be allowed. Such an appeal would lie

even against a finding if it’s necessary while operating as res judicata (a matter that has been
adjudicated by a competent Court and hence may not be pursued further by the same parties).
Who cannot appeal?
A party who waives his/her right to prefer an appeal against a judgment cannot file it at a
later stage. Further, as inferred from Scrutton L.J.’s words:
“It startles me that a person can say the judgment is wrong and at the same time accept the
payment under the judgment as being right….In my opinion, you cannot take the benefit of
judgment as being good and then appeal against it as being bad”,
If a party ratifies any decision of the Court by accepting and acknowledging the provisions
under it, it may be estopped from appealing that judgment in a higher forum.
The appeal against ex parte decree
In the first appeal under Section 96(2), the defendant on the merits of the suit can contend
that the materials brought on record by the plaintiff were insufficient for passing a decree in
his favour or that the suit was not otherwise maintainable. Alternatively, an application may
be presented to set aside such ex parte decree (it is a decree passed against a defendant in
absentia). Both of these remedies are concurrent in nature. Moreover, in an appeal against an
ex parte decree, the appellate court is competent to go into the question of the propriety or
otherwise of the ex parte decree passed by the trial court.
No appeal against consent decree
Section 96(3), based on the broad principle of estoppel, declares that no decree passed by the
consent of the parties shall be appealable. However, an appeal lies against a consent decree
where the ground of attack is that the consent decree is unlawful being in contravention of a
statute or that the council had no authority.
No appeal in petty cases
Section 96(4) bars appeals except on points of law in cases where the value of the subject-
matter of the original suit does not exceed Rs. 10,000, as cognizable by the Court of Small
Causes. The underlying objective of this provision is to reduce the number of appeals in petty
cases.

Conclusion
Appeals are recognized as statutory rights of persons aggrieved by any decision of an inferior
court in the interest of justice. First appeals are a form of appeal prescribed under the Code of
Civil Procedure. The period of limitation in case of an appeal to the first appellate authority is
90 days where it lies to the High Court. Finally, it can be concluded that the provisions of the
CPC extensively deal with the substantive as well as procedural aspects relating to all kinds
of appeals, while making express modifications in order to be accommodative of the more
specific legislation.

ANSWER TO THE QUESTION NO.2
1. PLAINT
IN THE COURT OF JOINT DISTRICT JUDGE, CHAPAINAWABGONJ
TITLE SUIT NO. OF 2021
Azizul Hakim, Son of late Abdul Hakim
of House No.23, Road No.12,
chapainawabgonj, Police Station- chapainawabgonj
chapainawabgonj-6300
…………..Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. Ziaul Ahsan son of Moinul Ahsan of House No.45, Road No.3,
chapainawabgonj …..Principal– Defendant
2. Sub-Registrar,
Mohammadpur Sub-Registry Office Registration Complex, chapainawabgonj
Police Station- chapainawabgonj sadar, chapainawabgonj
….Proforma-Defendant
Suit for declaration and recovery of possession
Suit valued at Tk.95,00,000
The Plaintiff above named most respectfully
SHEWETH/ STATES AS FOLLOWS
1. That the suit properties described in the schedule below (the suit properties) originally
belonged to one Narendranath Majumdar, and his name was rightly recorded in the
C.S Khatian.
2. That while owning and possessing the suit properties, Narendranath Majumdar died
leaving Khagendra Majumdar has his sole heir.

3. That by a sale deed bearing plot No.202 deed dated 23rd October 1964, Khagendra
sold the suit properties to Mr. Abdul Hakim, the father of the Plaintiff. Upon
purchasing the suit properties, the father of the Plaintiff took the possession of the
same. Thereafter, the S.A settlement operation began and his name was duly recorded
in the S.A record of rights,
4. That on the basis of S.A record, Mr. Abdul Hakim had been paying rents in respect of
the suit land. Then in the year 1974, R.S settlement operation began and Mr. Abdul
Hakim’s name was correctly recorded in the R.S Record of Rights. Thenceforth, Mr.
Abdul Hakim had been paying rents on the basis of R.S record.
5. That on 23rd March 2006, Mr. Abdul Hakim died leaving his wife Mrs. Selina
Hakim, and his only son Azizul Hakim as his heirs.
6. That on 5th October 2007, Mrs. Selina Hakim died, and thus the Plaintiff became the
sole owner and possessor of the suit properties.
7. That having become the owners and possessors of the suit properties, the Plaintiff
mutated his name in respect of the suit properties vide Mutation Case No. 453/2007-
2008 with the office of Assistant Commissioner (Land), chapainawabgonj Circle. He
also transferred the electricity, gas and other utility services in his name. Since then
the Plaintiff had been paying all rents and bills in his own names.
8. That since the Plaintiff was busy with his business, he felt it necessary to induct a
caretaker to look after the scheduled properties. With that view in mind, in the last
part of December 2007, the Plaintiff inducted the Defendant No.1 as the caretaker of
the suit properties.
9. That the Defendant No.1 was previously known to the Plaintiff since he was son of a
distant relative of the Plaintiff, and used to frequent the Plaintiff’s house while his
father was alive, and the Plaintiff’s father used to provide financial support according
to his own means.
10. That in the beginning of 2010, the Plaintiff got a good opportunity for investment in
New Zealand, and hence he was required to leave Bangladesh for a long time. As a
result, the Plaintiff entrusted all his documents relating to the suit properties to the
Defendant No.1 and gave him instructions for looking after the properties in his
absence. He also settled that he would send an amount of Tk. 10,000 (Taka ten
thousand only) per month as the salary to the Defendant No.1, in exchange of which,
he would take care of all the affairs of the scheduled properties on behalf of the
Plaintiff and should keep the Plaintiff informed about all the concerned matters from
time to time.
11. That having settled such arrangement, the Plaintiff left for New Zealand on 24th
January 2010. While in New Zealand, he maintained regular contact with the
Defendant No.1 through posts and telephone calls. However, from the mid, 2020the
Plaintiff lost all contacts with the Defendant No.1. The posts sent to him remained
unanswered, the telephone calls made to him failed to reach him. These circumstances
raised an alarm inside the Plaintiff who eventually decided to pay a short visit to
Bangladesh to find out for himself what went wrong.

12. That on 21st
January 2021 the Plaintiff came to Bangladesh and from the AirPort
straightway went to the scheduled properties. Upon reaching the site of the scheduled
properties, the Plaintiff found to his dismay that, on the main entrance of the building,
a signboard was hanging containing the name of the Defendant No.1 as the owner of
the properties.
13. That the Plaintiff went inside the building and found the Defendant No.1 sitting on the
veranda. The Plaintiff sought from him an explanation for his abstinence form
communication with him for such a long time, and also about the hanging of
signboard containing his own name in the front entrance.
14. That at this point, the Defendant No.1 told the Plaintiff that in fact, he had purchased
the land in December 2005 from the father of the Plaintiff, late Mr Abdul Hakim.
However, Abdul Hakim requested him not to disclose the fact of sale to anyone lest
the matter could upset his son and wife.
15. That upon hearing this, the Plaintiff made a search in the office of the Sub Registry
and found that a deed being deed No. 32154 was registered on 29th December 2005
purportedly showing that the father of the Plaintiff had sold the scheduled properties
in favour of the Defendant.
16. That it is stated that the father of the Plaintiff had never sold any part of the scheduled
property to the Defendant No.1 or any other person. The Defendant No.1 in order to
grab the scheduled properties fraudulently created the said deed which does not have
any validity at all.
17. That it is further stated that the said forged sale deed has cast cloud over the Plaintiff’s
title of the scheduled properties, and as such a decree of declaration from this court
dispelling the cloud is necessary accompanied by a decree directing the Defendant
No.1 to convey the possession of the scheduled properties in favour of the Plaintiff.
18. That the Plaintiff was dispossessed from the scheduled properties on 21st
January 2021 when he was denied to have access to the suit properties.
19. That the cause of action for filing the instant suit arose on 21st January 2021 when the
Plaintiff came to learn about the existence of the forged deed created by the
Defendant No.1, which arose within the Lalbagh Police Station, which is under the
jurisdiction of this court, and the cause of action still subsists in the same place.
20. That this being a suit for declaration of title and recovery of khas possession, ad
Valorem court fee is paid herewith.
Wherefore it is most humbly prayed that your Honour would be pleased to grant the
following relief(s):
a. A decree declaring that the Plaintiff is the 16 anna owner of the scheduled propertie

b. A decree declaring that the sale deed bearing No. 32154 dated 29th December 2005
registered with the Chapainawabgonj Sub-Registration Office, is void, ineffective and not
binding upon the Plaintiff
c. A decree directing the Defendant No.1 to convey the possession of the scheduled
properties in favour of the Plaintiff within a specified period, and on his failure to do so allow
the Plaintiff to take possession through the court;
d. A decree awarding costs in favour of the Plaintiff.
e. Any other or further relief or relief to which the Plaintiff is entitled in law and equity.
SCHEDULE
All that piece and parcel of land situated under District- Chapainawabgonj, Police Station-
Chapainawabgonj, Mouja –Chorjorprotap, C.S Khatain No. 202, C.S Plot No. 455, S.A.
Khatian No. 233, S.A Plot No. 456, R. S Khatian No. 1098, R.S Plot No. 654, Municipal
holding No. House No. 45 Road No.3. measuring an area of 12 katthas of land.
Butted and bounded by:
To the North House No. 44,
To the South House No. 46
To the West House No.34
To the East Road No. 3
VERIFICATION
The statements made hereinabove are true to the best of my knowledge and belief, and I sign
this verification on this the 17th
day of June 2021.
Azizul Hakim
Signature of the Plaintiff

2. WRITTEN STATEMENT:
TITLE SUIT NO.124 OF 2021
VERSUS
2. Sub-Registrar,
Written Statement on behalf of the defendant .
The defendant most respectfully-
Sheweth:
1. That there is no cause of action for the suit & the suit is liable to set aside.
2. That the suit is not maintainable in the present form & manner.
3. That the suit is barred by the principles of estoppels, waiver & acquiescence.
4. That the suit is barred by law of limitation.
5. That the suit is not maintainable according to section 42 of the Specific Relief Act.
6. That the plaintiff is not the owner & and has no possession as well neither the plaintiff has
ever possession of the suit land.
7. That the statements made in paragraph 3, 4 & 7 are the subject of records so the burden of
proof lies upon the plaintiff.

8. That the statements made from paragraph 8-20 are false, frivolous & vicious & denied by
this defendant
9. That the facts on behalf of this defendant are as follows:
a) That the Defendant No.1 had purchased the land in December 2005 from the father of the
Plaintiff, by a sale deed bearing No. 32154 dated 29th December 2005 registered with the
Chapainawabgonj Sub-Registration Office.
b) That the defendant mutated the said measuring an area of 12 katthas land in his own name
and also paid rent to the Govt. in respect of the land in dispute.
c) That the defendant has been possession of the suit land for more than 12 years. Defendant
cultivates 10 katthas of land out of 12 kathas of the suit land and his wife care taking a pond
in 2 kattahs of land out of 12 kathas of suit land.
d) That the suit land has been recorded in the name of the defendant in the recent field R.S
record bearing dag no. 160.
e) That the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit land but filed this suit on false,
frivolous and vexatious ground just to harass the defendant.
Wherefore it is prayed that your honour would be pleased to dismiss the suit with
explanatory cost against the plaintiff.
Verification
Verified at Chapainawabgonj this 01 of July, 2021 that the contents of para1-9 are true to the
best of my knowledge & belief.
Ziaul Ahsan
Signature of the Defendant
03. APPEAL
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, CHAPAINAWABGONJ
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REGULAR APPEAL
TITLE APPEAL NO 43 OF 2021
APPEAL ARISING OUT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 5.2.2021 PASSED IN
THE TITLE SUIT NO 124 OF 2021 BY THE LD CIVIL JUDGE [MD ARIFIN ARIF] AT
JOINT DISTRICT JUDGE COURT, CHAPAINAWABGONJ

…………..Appellant (Plaintiff)
VERSUS
Ziaul Ahsan son of Moinul Ahsan of House No.45, Road No.3,
chapainawabgonj,
chapainawabgonj …..Respondsant (Principal– Defendant)
Suit valued at Tk.95,00,000
MEMO OF APPEAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT FOR REGULAR APPEAL
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Order under Order 7 rule 11 of the Civil Code dated
5.2.2021 passed in the above Title suit by the Ld Civil Judge [Md. Arifin Arif] in Azizul
Hakim V Ziaul Ahsan, the appellant above named begs to prefer this Memo of Appeal on the
following amongst other:-
G R O U N D S
1. For the impugned Order of the Trial Court are against the settled principle of law,
Evidence and probabilities of the case.
2. For the Ld Court below has been pleased to dismiss the suit by the way of rejection of
plaint on the contrary Ld Court ought to have decreed the suit.
3. For the Ld Court below has failed to appreciate the scope, extent and propriety of the suit
in its proper perspective.
4. For the Ld Court below has failed to appreciate the status of the parties in their proper
perspectives.
5. For the Ld court below has failed to appreciate the factum of fraud as a cause of action for
bringing the Title Suit.
6. For the Ld trial Court did not apply its Judicial mind at the time of passing the impugned
Order for rejecting the Plaint under appeal.
7. For the Ld Court below has failed to appreciate the legal connotation of certain
interpretations such as :
Superior Court / higher forum
Cause of action and continuous/running cause of action
Fraud as an ingredient of the cause of action
Constructive Res-Judicata as not applicable in the Impugned Title Suit

‘Substratum’ of a Suit and Playing Fraud with the Substratum of a Suit
Equity relief
8. For the Ld Court below has erred in law and in fact in dismissing the suit on the rejection
of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Code while holding the following proposition of
Law :
“No Law authorized this court to set aside the Judgment of decree passed by any higher
forum “—–[ A Civil Court of Senior Division is not higher forum and above a civil court of
junior Division, is my humble submission].
Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act has no application for setting aside a Judgment and
Decree passed by any court ….[On the ground of fraud any judgment can be challenged and
declared to be set aside by an independent declaratory suit is my submission ]
All issues as preliminary issues in a Suit for the specific performance of the contract in T.S
no 25 /2007 “ were involved” in the dismissed Suit ….[ The issues on merit of the matter
which may arise between the parties would not be within the realm of the Court at the stage
of an Order 7 rule 11 application is the ratio in Kamala and Ors vs T Eshwara Sa and Ors
(2008) 12 SCC 661, as relied by the appellant and mis-applied by the trial judge as partially
appreciated , is my humble submission]
The suit is barred by Constructive Res judicata …[ Order 7 R 11(d) , the ratio in Kamala
and Ors vs K.T Eshwara Sa and Ors (2008) 12 SCC 661 goes against the impugned
proposition held by the Ld Trial judge, is my submission]
9. For that, the impugned Order under appeal is mis-conceived , speculative and non
application of law and mind, and result of cursive non- heartful reading of the Plaint and
relief as prayed thereby.
10. For that, the impugned order under this appeal is otherwise bad and cannot be sustained in
law
And
Therefore, the Suit under this appeal shall be restored and decided against the Respondent
after setting aside the impugned Order passed in 5.2.202.
Certifying that the grounds taken above are good grounds for admitting this appeal
ADVOCATE
DATE:- 2nd February 2021
Drafted and settled by
Md. Emon

4. INJUNCTION:
May It Please Your Honor
This is an application under Order 39 rule 1 & 2 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908.
Your Honor, This instant suit is for declaration of title and recovery of possession.
In this particular suit the plaintiff is “Azizul Hakim” and the defendant is “Ziaul Ahsan” and
I am representing the Plaintiff.
The property in dispute is situated at:
All that piece and parcel of land situated under District- Chapainawabgonj, Police Station-
Chapainawabgonj, Mouja –Chorjorprotap, C.S Khatain No. 343, C.S Plot No. 455, S.A.
Khatian No. 233, S.A Plot No. 456, R. S Khatian No. 1098, R.S Plot No. 654, Municipal
holding No. 03 House No. 45 Road No.3 measuring an area of 12 katthas of land.
Your honor the brief fact of the suit is:
The schedule property was owned by Mr. Abdul Hakim, father of the plaintiff. That
on 2006 Mr. Hakim died leaving his wife and his only son. Subsequently on 5th
October 2007
Mrs. Selina Hakim died and thus the plaintiff become the sole owner of the property.
As the plaintiff was a busy business man he inducted the defendant as a caretaker on 2010 to
look after the suit property with an agreement to pay taka 10,000 per month and left to New
Zealand for his business purpose.
From 2012 the plaintiff failed to communication with the defendant, and then being worried
on 2013 the plaintiff came back to Chapainawabgonj. On the first meeting with the
defendant, the plaintiff was informed that the defendant had parched the land on December
2005 from his father.
Later upon hearing such, the plaintiff made a search in sub-register office and found a
registered deed in favor of the defendant which he believe to be false and fabricated.
Hence for this reason the instant suit is filed.
Therefore after knowing about the suit the defendant became very much rigorous on 4th
June
2021 and initiated to dig a pond. And that is why an order of injunction is required.
Your Honor, to get an order of injunction we need to fulfill three requirement, which are :
1. Prima faci Arguable Case
2. Balance of convenience or inconvenience And
3. Irreparable loss or injury
With You Honor’s kind permission I would like to show how this suit meets these
requirements
1. Prima faci Arguable Case
Your Honor, at first if we look at the overall fact of the case, the defendant already admitted
that the plaintiff’s father was the owner of the property and then he stated that he had
purchased the property form plaintiff’s father in December 2005.
Your Honor, there are some serious question of fact, that why the defendant did not claimed
the property after the death of Mr Abdul Hakim on 2006? And why the defendant suddenly

claimed the property after 7 long years (2013), at the time when the plaintiff came back from
abroad to take care of his property.
Your Honor, these questions are very fair, clear and arguably in the favour of the plaintiff.
Thus the plaintiff is liable to get an injunction order.
Your honor, In this particular matter I beg to sight an authority. “The applicant has to show
that a fair and arguable case exists in his favour” as decided in “SN Gupta & Co. v.
Sadanda”, 11 DLR 470.
2. Balance of convenience or inconvenience
Your Honour, If the earth is dug, the value of the property will drop drastically, the plaintiff
would lose his childhood memories and further legal complexity would arise in the future. On
the other hand, if the plaintiff get your kind order of injunction there would be no loss or
damage in the part of defendant’s right.
Your honour, If the injunction is not given, the mischief plaintiff may suffered would be
greater than the defendant’s sufferings. So, the plaintiff has the ground to have an injunction
order as decided in a leading case of Dalpat v. Prahlad, AIR 1993 SC 276 which cited
that “On weighing the conflicting probabilities, the court will grant the relief if in its opinion
the balance of inconvenience is in favour of the applicant. e.g. if the mischief to the applicant
is greater than the mischief to the opposite party”
3. Irreparable loss or injury
Your Honour, if the order of injunction is not given, the defendant will dig the earth.
Consequently, the plaintiff would suffer as he would lose his personal memories related to
that property and which cannot be adequately remedied by any other thing.
So the only way to save plaintiff from this irreparable loss by restraining the other party by an
injunction order. Thus the plaintiff satisfies the element wanted in the remarkable
case “Uttara Bank v. Macneil & Kilburn Ltd., 33 DLR (AD) 298 which cited “He must show
that he shall suffer irreparable loss or injury not commensurable in monetary terms unless
the other party is restrained.”
In these circumstances
Wherefore it is most humbly prayed that Your Honour would be pleased to issue a notice
calling upon the Defendant to show cause as to why he should not be restrained by an order
of temporary injunction from changing the nature and character of the scheduled
property unless the instant suit is finally disposed of, and upon hearing the parties, and upon
perusing the cause shown, if any, pass an order of temporary injunction.
And
Pending hearing of the injunction petition, your honour would further be pleased to pass an
order of ad interim injunction restraining the Defendant from changing the nature and
character of the scheduled properties.
That’s all my submission, your honour, unless your honour has any quarries.
Much Oblidge.

5. AMENDMENT OF PLAINT
TITLE SUIT NO. OF 2021
VERSUS
2. Sub-Registrar,
Petition for Amendment of Plaint
And for this act of kindness the plaintiff-petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.
SHEWETH
1. That the plaintiff petitioner instituted the suite on 01.02.2021 for declaration under
section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 against the defendant.
2. That the suit is pending in this Hon’ble court and is fixed for hearing on 01. 06. 2021
3. That the learned advocate of the plaintiff has drafted the plaint in hurry to give the
client immediate relief, in his honest endeavor some mistake crept into the plaint and
several omissions were made which need to be corrected and inserted by the way of
amendment of plaint.
4. That the amendments sought for as follows:
▪ In page No.2 at para 3 the digit “202” shall be substituted by digit “302”.
▪ After paragraph No. 9 of the plaint a new paragraph requires to be inserted as Paragraph
no. 9A with following words;
“That after the death of defendant’s father defendant came to the plaintiff and requested him
to provide him a job to survive.”

5. That the amendment shall be needed to determine the real question of controversy.
6. That the proposed amendment shall not change the nature or the character of the
plaint and it shall not be prejudice to the other party.
7. That If the court shall not grant the petition of amendment of plaint, the plaintiff
petitioner shall be highly prejudiced.
Wherefore it is most humbly prayed that your lordship would graciously be pleased to allow
the petition of amendment and pass an order for the necessary amendment accordingly for the
ends of justice. And to pass such other order as deemed fit and proper.
And for this act of kindness the plaintiff-petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.
AFFIDAVIT
I, Azizul Hakim Son of – late Abdul Hakim and Amina Begum, Permanent residence
of House No.23, Road No.12, Chapainawabgobnj, Police Station
Chapainawabgobnj, District – Chapainawabgobnj , aged 60 years by Faith- Muslim, by
profession- Businessman, By Nationality- Bangladeshi do hear by solemnly affirm and say as
follows.
1. That I am the petitioner of this application and well acquainted with the facts and
circumstances of this case and competent to swear this affidavit.
2. That the statements made above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Prepared in my office
Md. Limon Ali
Advocate (Notary Public)
Md. Fateh Ali Sha
Signature of the Deponent
The deponent is known to me and identified by me.
Md. Arifin Arif
Advocate
Solemnly declared and affirmed before me on
This 03rd
day of March 2021

Formats of civil drafting

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Formats of civil drafting

Similar to Formats of civil drafting (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Formats of civil drafting