Abdul Haq
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Abdul Haq as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 1,815
- Pages: 11
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No._______/2002 Abdul Haq S/o Rehmat Ali, caste Jat Sindhu, R/o Chak No. 9/MR, Tehsil & District Multan. …….Petitioner VERSUS 1. Province of Punjab through District Officer Revenue, Multan. 2. Deputy Collector, Multan Canal Division/S.D.C.O. Abdali Road, Multan. 3. Division Canal Officer, Multan Canal Division Abdali Road, Multan. 4. Mushtaq Ahmad S/o Muhammad Ramzan, caste Arain. 5. 6. 7. 8.
Muhammad Munir Bashir Ahmad sons Muhammad Aslam Muhammad Amin
Ghulam Mustafa caste Arain, R/o Chak No. 9/MR, Tehsil & District Multan. ……Respondents
REVISION PETITION against the judgment & decree of the Civil Judge 1st Class, Multan dated 26.11.2001 and against the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Multan dated 9.2.2002 by which the suit of the petitioner and his subsequent appeal were dismissed by the respective learned courts below. CLAIM IN REVISION PETITION: To set aside the orders of the learned courts below and to decree the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff against the defendants.
Respectfully Sheweth: 1. That the names and addresses of the parties have correctly been given for the purpose of their summons and citations.
2. That the petitioner and respondents No. 4 to 8 are irrigators of outlet No. 32012/R of Ghariala Minor & owners of agricultural land in Chak No. 9/MR (copy of record of rights and map of outlet No. 32012/R are Annexes “A & B”. 3. That the respondents No. 4 to 8 who earlier have dismantled the water course of the petitioner twice and the same was ordered to be restored, out of revenge filed cross case/application to the Divisional Canal Officer, Multan Canals Division alleging that water course in Khasra No. 25/4-5 has been dismantled by the present petitioner and the same may be got restored through police help. The D.C.O. sent the said application to S.D.C.O. for investigation and report. The field staff of the Irrigation Department conducted proceedings without associating the petitioner with the inquiry and submitted their one-sided report recommending restoration of the alleged dismantled water course from the cultivated land of the petitioner (copy of applications dated 7.2.2000, 19.2.2000 filed by the petitioner and respondent No. 4, orders dated 16.2.2000 & 23.2.2000 in favour of the petitioner are Annexes “C, D, E, F & G” 4. That the D.C.O. also without notice, without service and without providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner vide his order dated 9.3.2000 directed excavation of Khal in Khasra No.’s 25/4-5 (copy of order dated 9.3.2000 is Annex “H”. 5. That being aggrieved from the above-said order of the D.C.O. the petitioner approached the Civil Court by filing a suit for declaration and permanent injunction restraining the respondents to construct the impugned water-course from the land of the petitioner. The learned trial court, while hearing arguments on the stay application, along-with application also rejected the plaint under order 7 rule 11 of C.P.C vide its order dated 26.11.2001. The said orders of the learned trial court were challenged through appeal but it met the same fate and the learned appeal court, vide its order and judgment dismissed the appeal, hence, this revision petition. (Copy of plaint, written statement & orders dated
26.11.2001, memo of appeal and order dated 9.2.2002 are Annexes “I,J,K,L & M”). 6. That the judgment and orders of the courts below are illegal, void and against the facts, hence, liable to rejection inter alia on the following amongst other: GROUNDS i)
That the learned trial court has passed its order in a slipshod manner without taking into consideration the prevalent circumstances, record of the case and also the real grievances of the petitioner/plaintiff.
ii)
That the learned trial court has wrongly held that the petitioner/plaintiff have concealed the facts from the court, whereas the respondents No. 5 to 8 have really concealed the facts. This is also reflected from their plaint wherein they despite knowledge that two orders by the Canal authorities were passed in their presence directing restoration of the dismantled water-course from their land in Khasra No.’s 25/1-2-3 did not mention these in the said plaint. Their plaint was also rejected. (Copy of plaint is Annex “N”).
iii)
That the learned trial court also ignored the conduct of the respondents/plaintiffs specially respondent No. 5 Muhammad Munir, who is a very notorious person, prepared fictitious stay orders of the court to stop the excavation of water-course from their land (copy of the said order dated 15.3.2000 & copy of application for grant of a copy of this order from the court and copy of police record of respondent No. 5 are Annexes “O, P & Q”).
iv)
That the learned courts below also did not notice that the impugned order was passed without any personal inquiry by the D.C.O. without associating the petitioner with the inquiry proceedings as such the same was liable to be struck down.
v)
That the learned courts below did not apply their judicial mind to the aspect that the superior courts have prohibited excavation of water-course from the land of another person except as given below (i) with mutual consent, (ii) through an easement, (iii) by acquiring land under the provision of Canal & Drainage Act whereas non of these were complied with in the instant case, hence, the view point of the courts below is not sustainable in the eye of law.
vi)
That the learned appeal court, while pronouncing its decision has relied upon 1987 CLC 2093 Lahore and held that interim order could not be challenged before a civil court, whereas the above-said citation has been over-ruled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan vide its judgment SCMR 1992--613 according to which an order under section 68-A of the D.C.O. can competently be assailed before the civil court. Keeping in view the above-stated facts, it is respectfully prayed that this revision petition may very graciously be accepted and orders of the courts below be set aside and the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff be decreed against defendants. Any other relief which this Hon’ble court deems fit, may very kindly be extended in the favour of the petitioner to meet the ends of justice & equity. HUMBLE PETITIONER,
Dated: ___________ Through: Ziad Ahmad Mufti, Advocate High Court, 6-Allama Iqbal Block, District Courts, Multan. CERTIFICATE: Certified as per instructions of the client, that this is the first revision petition on the subject matter. No such petition has earlier been filed before this Hon’ble Court. Advocate
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
REVISION PETITION No._______/2002 Abdul Haq
Vs.
Province of Punjab etc.
AFFIDAVIT of: Abdul Haq S/o Rehmat Ali, caste Jat Sindhu, R/o Chak No. 9/MR, Tehsil & District Multan.
I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the above-titled revision petition are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept concealed thereto. DEPONENT
Verification: Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day of February 2002 that the contents of this affidavit are true & correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. DEPONENT
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
In re: C.M. No. ________________/2002 In REVISION PETITION No._______/2002 Abdul Haq
Vs.
Province of Punjab etc.
APPLICATION FOR DISPENSING WITH THE FILING OF CERTIFIED COPIES OF ANNEXURES. =========================================
Respectfully Sheweth: That certified copies of Annexures “
”
are not available. However, uncertified/photo state copies of the same have been annexed with the petition, which are true copies of original documents. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble court may please dispense with the filing of aforesaid copies of documents. PETITIONER Dated: __________ Through: Ziad Ahmad Mufti, Advocate High Court, 6-Allama Iqbal Block, District Courts, Multan.
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
In re: C.M. No. ________________/2002 In REVISION PETITION No._______/2002 Abdul Haq
Vs.
Province of Punjab etc.
DISPENSATION APPLICATION. AFFIDAVIT of: Abdul Haq S/o Rehmat Ali, caste Jat Sindhu, R/o Chak No. 9/MR, Tehsil & District Multan.
I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the above-mentioned application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept concealed thereto. DEPONENT
Verification: Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day of February 2002 that the contents of this affidavit are true & correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. DEPONENT
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No._______/2002 C
Abdul Haq
Vs.
Province of Punjab etc.
INDEX S. No. DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS ANNEXES PAGES 1
Urgent Form
2
Revision Petition.
3
Copies of record of rights and map.
A& B
4
Copies of applications and orders.
C,D,E,F & G
5
Copy of order dated 9.3.2000.
6
Copies of plaint, written statement & I,J,K,L & M orders dated 26.11.2001, memo of appeal and order dated 9.2.2002. Copy of plaint. N
7 8
H
9
Copy of application for grant of a copy of this order and copy of police record of respondent No. 5. Dispensation Application.
10
Affidavit.
11
Application U/s 151 C.P.C.
12
Affidavit.
13
Vakalatnama
O, P & Q
PETITIONER, Dated: ____________ Through: Ziad Ahmad Mufti, Advocate High Court, 6-Allama Iqbal Block, District Courts, Multan.
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
In re: C.M. No. ________________/2002 In REVISION PETITION No._______/2002 Abdul Haq
Vs.
Province of Punjab etc.
Application under section 151 C.P.C. for the grant of Stay Orders. The applicant respectfully sheweth as under: 1. That the above captioned revision petition has been filed before this August Court. 2. That the contents of the Writ Petition should be considered as part and parcel of this application. 3. That the Petitioner has a good prima facie case. 4. That the respondents are bent upon to implement the orders of the D.C.O. In case they succeeded in it, the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss. 5. That the balance of convenience lies with the applicant. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that during the pendency of the revision petition the implementation of the order of the D.C.O. may kindly be suspended. Affidavit is attached. Humble Applicant Dated: __________ (Abdul Haq) Through: Ziad Ahmad Mufti, Advocate High Court, 6-Allama Iqbal Block, District Courts, Multan.
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
In re: C.M. No. ________________/2002 In REVISION PETITION No._______/2002 Abdul Haq
Vs.
Province of Punjab etc.
STAY APPLICATION. AFFIDAVIT of: Abdul Haq S/o Rehmat Ali, caste Jat Sindhu, R/o Chak No. 9/MR, Tehsil & District Multan.
I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the above-titled application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept concealed thereto. DEPONENT
Verification: Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day of February 2002 that the contents of this affidavit are true & correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. DEPONENT
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No._______/2002 Abdul Haq S/o Rehmat Ali, caste Jat Sindhu, R/o Chak No. 9/MR, Tehsil & District Multan. …….Petitioner VERSUS 1. Province of Punjab through District Officer Revenue, Multan. 2. Deputy Collector, Multan Canal Division/S.D.C.O. Abdali Road, Multan. 3. Division Canal Officer, Multan Canal Division Abdali Road, Multan. 4. Mushtaq Ahmad S/o Muhammad Ramzan, caste Arain. 5. 6. 7. 8.
Muhammad Munir Bashir Ahmad sons Muhammad Aslam Muhammad Amin
Ghulam Mustafa caste Arain, R/o Chak No. 9/MR, Tehsil & District Multan. ……Respondents
REVISION PETITION against the judgment & decree of the Civil Judge 1st Class, Multan dated 26.11.2001 and against the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Multan dated 9.2.2002 by which the suit of the petitioner and his subsequent appeal were dismissed by the respective learned courts below. CLAIM IN REVISION PETITION: To set aside the orders of the learned courts below and to decree the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff against the defendants.
Respectfully Sheweth: 1. That the names and addresses of the parties have correctly been given for the purpose of their summons and citations.
2. That the petitioner and respondents No. 4 to 8 are irrigators of outlet No. 32012/R of Ghariala Minor & owners of agricultural land in Chak No. 9/MR (copy of record of rights and map of outlet No. 32012/R are Annexes “A & B”. 3. That the respondents No. 4 to 8 who earlier have dismantled the water course of the petitioner twice and the same was ordered to be restored, out of revenge filed cross case/application to the Divisional Canal Officer, Multan Canals Division alleging that water course in Khasra No. 25/4-5 has been dismantled by the present petitioner and the same may be got restored through police help. The D.C.O. sent the said application to S.D.C.O. for investigation and report. The field staff of the Irrigation Department conducted proceedings without associating the petitioner with the inquiry and submitted their one-sided report recommending restoration of the alleged dismantled water course from the cultivated land of the petitioner (copy of applications dated 7.2.2000, 19.2.2000 filed by the petitioner and respondent No. 4, orders dated 16.2.2000 & 23.2.2000 in favour of the petitioner are Annexes “C, D, E, F & G” 4. That the D.C.O. also without notice, without service and without providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner vide his order dated 9.3.2000 directed excavation of Khal in Khasra No.’s 25/4-5 (copy of order dated 9.3.2000 is Annex “H”. 5. That being aggrieved from the above-said order of the D.C.O. the petitioner approached the Civil Court by filing a suit for declaration and permanent injunction restraining the respondents to construct the impugned water-course from the land of the petitioner. The learned trial court, while hearing arguments on the stay application, along-with application also rejected the plaint under order 7 rule 11 of C.P.C vide its order dated 26.11.2001. The said orders of the learned trial court were challenged through appeal but it met the same fate and the learned appeal court, vide its order and judgment dismissed the appeal, hence, this revision petition. (Copy of plaint, written statement & orders dated
26.11.2001, memo of appeal and order dated 9.2.2002 are Annexes “I,J,K,L & M”). 6. That the judgment and orders of the courts below are illegal, void and against the facts, hence, liable to rejection inter alia on the following amongst other: GROUNDS i)
That the learned trial court has passed its order in a slipshod manner without taking into consideration the prevalent circumstances, record of the case and also the real grievances of the petitioner/plaintiff.
ii)
That the learned trial court has wrongly held that the petitioner/plaintiff have concealed the facts from the court, whereas the respondents No. 5 to 8 have really concealed the facts. This is also reflected from their plaint wherein they despite knowledge that two orders by the Canal authorities were passed in their presence directing restoration of the dismantled water-course from their land in Khasra No.’s 25/1-2-3 did not mention these in the said plaint. Their plaint was also rejected. (Copy of plaint is Annex “N”).
iii)
That the learned trial court also ignored the conduct of the respondents/plaintiffs specially respondent No. 5 Muhammad Munir, who is a very notorious person, prepared fictitious stay orders of the court to stop the excavation of water-course from their land (copy of the said order dated 15.3.2000 & copy of application for grant of a copy of this order from the court and copy of police record of respondent No. 5 are Annexes “O, P & Q”).
iv)
That the learned courts below also did not notice that the impugned order was passed without any personal inquiry by the D.C.O. without associating the petitioner with the inquiry proceedings as such the same was liable to be struck down.
v)
That the learned courts below did not apply their judicial mind to the aspect that the superior courts have prohibited excavation of water-course from the land of another person except as given below (i) with mutual consent, (ii) through an easement, (iii) by acquiring land under the provision of Canal & Drainage Act whereas non of these were complied with in the instant case, hence, the view point of the courts below is not sustainable in the eye of law.
vi)
That the learned appeal court, while pronouncing its decision has relied upon 1987 CLC 2093 Lahore and held that interim order could not be challenged before a civil court, whereas the above-said citation has been over-ruled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan vide its judgment SCMR 1992--613 according to which an order under section 68-A of the D.C.O. can competently be assailed before the civil court. Keeping in view the above-stated facts, it is respectfully prayed that this revision petition may very graciously be accepted and orders of the courts below be set aside and the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff be decreed against defendants. Any other relief which this Hon’ble court deems fit, may very kindly be extended in the favour of the petitioner to meet the ends of justice & equity. HUMBLE PETITIONER,
Dated: ___________ Through: Ziad Ahmad Mufti, Advocate High Court, 6-Allama Iqbal Block, District Courts, Multan. CERTIFICATE: Certified as per instructions of the client, that this is the first revision petition on the subject matter. No such petition has earlier been filed before this Hon’ble Court. Advocate
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
REVISION PETITION No._______/2002 Abdul Haq
Vs.
Province of Punjab etc.
AFFIDAVIT of: Abdul Haq S/o Rehmat Ali, caste Jat Sindhu, R/o Chak No. 9/MR, Tehsil & District Multan.
I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the above-titled revision petition are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept concealed thereto. DEPONENT
Verification: Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day of February 2002 that the contents of this affidavit are true & correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. DEPONENT
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
In re: C.M. No. ________________/2002 In REVISION PETITION No._______/2002 Abdul Haq
Vs.
Province of Punjab etc.
APPLICATION FOR DISPENSING WITH THE FILING OF CERTIFIED COPIES OF ANNEXURES. =========================================
Respectfully Sheweth: That certified copies of Annexures “
”
are not available. However, uncertified/photo state copies of the same have been annexed with the petition, which are true copies of original documents. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble court may please dispense with the filing of aforesaid copies of documents. PETITIONER Dated: __________ Through: Ziad Ahmad Mufti, Advocate High Court, 6-Allama Iqbal Block, District Courts, Multan.
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
In re: C.M. No. ________________/2002 In REVISION PETITION No._______/2002 Abdul Haq
Vs.
Province of Punjab etc.
DISPENSATION APPLICATION. AFFIDAVIT of: Abdul Haq S/o Rehmat Ali, caste Jat Sindhu, R/o Chak No. 9/MR, Tehsil & District Multan.
I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the above-mentioned application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept concealed thereto. DEPONENT
Verification: Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day of February 2002 that the contents of this affidavit are true & correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. DEPONENT
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No._______/2002 C
Abdul Haq
Vs.
Province of Punjab etc.
INDEX S. No. DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS ANNEXES PAGES 1
Urgent Form
2
Revision Petition.
3
Copies of record of rights and map.
A& B
4
Copies of applications and orders.
C,D,E,F & G
5
Copy of order dated 9.3.2000.
6
Copies of plaint, written statement & I,J,K,L & M orders dated 26.11.2001, memo of appeal and order dated 9.2.2002. Copy of plaint. N
7 8
H
9
Copy of application for grant of a copy of this order and copy of police record of respondent No. 5. Dispensation Application.
10
Affidavit.
11
Application U/s 151 C.P.C.
12
Affidavit.
13
Vakalatnama
O, P & Q
PETITIONER, Dated: ____________ Through: Ziad Ahmad Mufti, Advocate High Court, 6-Allama Iqbal Block, District Courts, Multan.
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
In re: C.M. No. ________________/2002 In REVISION PETITION No._______/2002 Abdul Haq
Vs.
Province of Punjab etc.
Application under section 151 C.P.C. for the grant of Stay Orders. The applicant respectfully sheweth as under: 1. That the above captioned revision petition has been filed before this August Court. 2. That the contents of the Writ Petition should be considered as part and parcel of this application. 3. That the Petitioner has a good prima facie case. 4. That the respondents are bent upon to implement the orders of the D.C.O. In case they succeeded in it, the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss. 5. That the balance of convenience lies with the applicant. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that during the pendency of the revision petition the implementation of the order of the D.C.O. may kindly be suspended. Affidavit is attached. Humble Applicant Dated: __________ (Abdul Haq) Through: Ziad Ahmad Mufti, Advocate High Court, 6-Allama Iqbal Block, District Courts, Multan.
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
In re: C.M. No. ________________/2002 In REVISION PETITION No._______/2002 Abdul Haq
Vs.
Province of Punjab etc.
STAY APPLICATION. AFFIDAVIT of: Abdul Haq S/o Rehmat Ali, caste Jat Sindhu, R/o Chak No. 9/MR, Tehsil & District Multan.
I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the above-titled application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept concealed thereto. DEPONENT
Verification: Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day of February 2002 that the contents of this affidavit are true & correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. DEPONENT
