Ahmad Hassan

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

C. R. No. _____________/2001 Ahmad Hassan S/o Mian Ibrahim, caste Arain, R/o Basti Sirajia, Khanewal. ……PETITIONER VERSUS 1.

Mst. Karim Bibi sister of Hassan Bhari (deceased) alias Hashmat Bibi wife of Ali Muhammad.

2. 3.

Muhammad Tariq Shahid Ali

sons of Amanat Ali, nephews of Hassan Bhari (deceased) alias Hashmat Bibi.

4.

Tahir Ali S/o Barkat Ali, nephew of Hassan Bhari (deceased) alias Hashmat Bibi, caste Arain, R/o Karachi, presently residing at Shop No. 93, Block 7, Khanewal, Tehsil & District Khanewal, through general power of attorney Inayat Ullah S/o Sher Muhammad, caste Arain, R/o Al-Khalil Masjid, Khalil Town, Khanewal.

5.

Shabbir Ahmad S/o Sheikh Abdul Hameed R/o Block No. 6, Khanewal.

6.

Muhammad Yousuf S/o Fazal Din Raja, R/o near Barri Basjid, Khanewal old, Tehsil and District Khanewal.

7.

Abdul Qadir ex-Municipal Councilor District Khanewal, Block No. 1, Khanewal.

8.

Sub-Registrar, Khanewal.

9.

The Province of Punjab, through Collector, Khanewal. …..RESPONDENTS

REVISION PETITION: -U/S 115 C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 8.2.2001 passed by the court of Mehmood Aslam Chowhan District Judge, Khanewal through which the learned court dismissed the appeal of the petitioners and upheld the Judgment & Decree dated 3.6.99 passed by the Court of Muhammad Boota Civil Judge, Khanewal.

Claim in Revision: By accepting the Revision Petition, set aside the impugned judgment and decree of the learned courts below and dismissed the suit of the respondents.

Respectfully Sheweth: 1.

That the names and addresses of the parties have correctly been given for the purpose of their services and citations.

2.

That the petitioner purchased the house No. 93, Block 7 Tehsil & District Khanewal for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty thousand rupees only) from Mst. Hassan Basri alias Hashmat Bibi vide registered sale deed No. 573 dated 6.5.87 and thereafter the sale was incorporated in the revenue record through Mutation No. 7051 dated 25.5.87.

3.

That thereafter Mst. Hassan Basri alias Hashmat Bibi instituted a suit for declaration against the petitioner stating therein that the suit property is her property and the petitioner/ defendant has no concern with the same. The registered sale deed nO. 573 dated 6.5.87 and Mutation No. 7051 dated 25.5.87 are illegal, ultra vires, collusive, based on fraud, fake, fictitious and ineffective upon the rights of the plaintiff and are liable to be suspended. Certified copy of the plaint is Annexure “A”.

4.

That the petitioner submitted his written statement. He amongst other objections, objected about the courts. Certified copy of the written statements is Annexure “B”.

5.

That during trial of the case, Mst. Hassan Basri had died and respondents/ plaintiffs No. 1 to 4 became the legal heirs and issues No. 5-A, 5-B & 5-C were formulated.

6.

That the learned civil judge framed following issues: 1)

Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit house? OPP

2)

Whether the sale deed No. 573 dated 6.5.87 and subsequent Mutation No. 7051 dated 25.5.87 are illegal, against the facts, ultra vires, without consideration, collusive, fraudulent, ineffective and in-operative on the rights of the plaintiff? OPP

3)

Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action and locus standi? OPD

4)

Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his words and conduct to file the suit? OPD

5)

Whether the defendant bonafide purchasers with consideration? OPD

5-A) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file present suit? OPD. 1 to 3 5-B) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD. 1 to 3.

5-C) Whether the defendant No. 1 executed an agreement and General Power of Attorney, in the favour of the plaintiffs/original plaintiff and the said power of attorney was got cancelled with notice to the original plaintiff? OPD 6)

Whether the defendants are entitled to any special cost under section 35-A of the C.P.C.? OPD

7) 7.

Relief.

That the respondents/plaintiffs produced 12 witnesses and 48 documents in their favour. The certified copies of the evidence are Annexures C/1 to C/60”.

8.

That the petitioner/defendant has got recorded the statement of six witnesses and produced documentary evidence. The copies of the statements of the witnesses and documentary evidence are Annnexures D1 to D .

9.

That the learned Civil Judge decreed the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs vide his judgment & decree dated 3.6.99. The copy of the Judgment is Annexure “E”, & copy of decree is Annexure “F”.

10.

That the petitioner filed an appeal before the District Judge Khanewal. The learned District Judge Khanewal, vide his judgment & decree dated 8.2.2001 dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment & decree of the Civil Judge dated 3.6.99. Hence, this Revision Petition is going to be filed before this Hon’ble High Court. The copy of the Memorandum of Appeal is Annexure “G”, copy of the judgment and is Annexure “H” & copy of decree is Annexure “J”.

11.

That the impugned judgment & decree are illegal, ultra vires, against facts and are not sustainable in the eyes of law and have no binding effect qua the rights of the petitioner inter alia amongst other following: GROUNDS i)

That the petitioner in his written statement has written: -

“It is the duty of the court to formulate the issue about the court fee. But the learned lower court has not framed the issue in this regard. Moreover the

respondents/plaintiffs

have

themselves

admitted in their evidence, that the value of the suit property was near about 8 lac rupees at the time of sale. The plaintiffs/ respondents have challenged the sale deed of the petitioner, therefore, they should have affixed the court fee at their plaint. Even otherwise the court should have calculated the amount of the court fee and have ordered the plaintiffs to affix the same with the plaint. By not doing this, the learned lower court has committed illegality. ii)

That the learned court has framed issue No. 5-C and onus of probendi put upon the petitioner/defendant. Whereas, the onus of the issue should have been put upon the plaintiff/respondents. They should have proved this issue and the petitioner be given chance to rebut the same. But the learned courts below have not considered this legal aspect. As such the courts have not exercised their jurisdiction as provided by law.

iii)

That the issues have not been framed according to the pleadings of the parties. In this way, the petitioner has not been given full opportunity to defend his case.

iv)

That the respondents have not proved their case beyond reasonable doubt. There are many discrepancies in the pleading and the in the statement, witness and evidence produced by the respondents/plaintiffs. But the learned lower court has ignored the same. On the other hand, the petitioner has adduced his oral as well as documentary evidence and proved his case but the

learned lower court has not considered the same. It has misread the evidence and material produced. v)

That the learned courts have failed to exercise their jurisdiction so vested in them.

vi)

That it is evident from the record that the courts have acted and exercised their jurisdiction illegally and with maternal irregularity.

vii)

That the petitioner has a good prima facie. Under these circumstances, it is, humbly prayed that this Revision Petition may very graciously be accepted and impugned judgment & decree may very graciously be set aside and the suit be dismissed with costs throughout. Humble Petitioner,

Dated: __________ (Ahmad Hassan)

Through: Syed Muhammad Afaq Shah, Advocate High Court, 93-District Courts, Multan.

CERTIFICATE: Certified as per instructions of the client, 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.

C. R. No. _____________/2001

Ahmad Hassan

VS.

Mst. Karim Bibi etc.

AFFIDAVIT of: Ahmad Hassan S/o Mian Ibrahim, caste Arain, R/o Basti Sirajia, Khanewal.

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the above-titled Civil Revision 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 2001 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.

C.M. No. _______________/2001 In Civil Revision No. _____________/2001

Ahmad Hassan

VS.

Mst. Karim Bibi.

Application U/s 151 C.P.C. for the suspension of judgment & decree and granting of stay order that the respondent should not alienate the suit property till the decree of the civil revision.

The appellant respectfully sheweth as under: 1.

That the above titled Civil Revision is going to be filed before this Hon’ble Court.

2.

That the contents of the Civil Revision may be considered the part and parcel of this application.

3.

That the applicant has a good prima facie case.

4.

That the respondents are trying to get implemented the impugned judgment, decree and therefore, alienate the suit property. If they do this, then the applicant will have to suffer irreparable loss.

5.

That the balance of convenience lies with the applicant. Under these circumstances, it is respectfully prayed that the impugned judgment & decree may very graciously be suspended till the decision of the civil revision and the respondent be restrained to alienate the suit property in any manner. Any other relief which the Hon’ble Court deems fit, may be awarded. Humble Applicant, Dated: _________ (Ahmad Hassan)

Through: Syed Muhammad Afaq Shah, Advocate High Court, 93-District Courts, Multan.

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

C.M. No. _______________/2001 In Civil Revision No. _____________/2001

Ahmad Hassan

VS.

Mst. Karim Bibi.

AFFIDAVIT of: Ahmad Hassan S/o Mian Ibrahim, caste Arain, R/o Basti Sirajia, Khanewal.

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 2001 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.

C. R. No. _____________/2001

Ahmad Hassan

VS.

Mst. Karim Bibi etc.

REVISION

INDEX S. No. NAME OF DOCUMENTS

ANNEXES PAGES

1

Opening Sheet.

2

Contents of Revision Petition.

3

Affidavit.

4

Copy of Plaint dated 21.2.88.

A

5

Copy of written statement dtd. 9.3.92.

B

6

Copy of evidence of plaint.

C

P.W.1 Rehmat Ali dated 7.6.92.

C/1

P.W.2 Inayat Ullah dated 7.6.92.

C/2

P.W.3 Dr. M. Munir dated 20.2.95

C/3

P.W.4 M. Saleem dated 20.2.95

C/4

P.W.5 Ch. M. Tahir dated 20.2.95

C/5

P.W.6 M.S. Arshad dated 28.5.95

C/6

P.W.7 Niaz Ahmad dated 11.6.95

C/7

P.W.8 Hakeem-ud-Din Advocate dated 5.10.95 P.W.9 M. Saleem dated 20.11.95

C/8

P.W.10 M. Akram dated 21.6.97

C/10

P.W.11 Abdul Latif dated 21.6.97

C/11

P.W.12 Inayat Ullah dated 21.6.97.

C/12

7

Better copy.

8

Documentary Evidence Ex.P1 to P48

9

Evidence of the defendant/petitioner

C/9

D.W.1 S. Faqeer Hussain 27.11.95

D/1

D.W.2 Ahmad Hasan Sandal 10.3.96

D/2

D.W.3 Khalil Ahmad 17.3.1996

D/3

D.W.4 Abdul Qadir 17.3.96

D/4

D.W.5 Ghulam Hussain 22.4.96

D/5

D.W.6 M. Yousaf 12.5.96

D/6

D.W.7 Ahmad Hassan 20.6.96

D/7

10

Better copies.

11

Documentary Evidence Ex.D1 to D13

12

E

13

Judgment of the court of Muhammad Boota Shahid, Civil Judge, Khanewal dated 3.6.99. Decree dated 3.6.99.

14

Memo of Appeal dated 5.7.99.

G

15

Better copy.

16 17

Judgment in the court of Muhammad Aslam Choudhary Distt. Judge, Khanewal dated 8.2.2001. Decree dated 8.2.2001.

18

Stay Application.

19

Affidavit.

20

Vakalatnama

Dated: ____________

F

H I

Court Date

15/-

Court Date

200/-

Court Date Decided

Amount of Court fee on petition

Court fee.Value for purposes of

Value for purposes of injunction.

in English Court.Date for filing petition

FIRST APPEAL

200/-

Court Date Instituted

8.2.2001

Decided

Ch. Distt. Judge Khwl.In the Court of M.Aslam

Instituted

5.7.99

ORIGINAL SUIT

Judge, Khanewal.In the Court of District

3.6.99

Civil Judge, Khanewal. In the Court of M. Boota

21.2.88

Civil Judge, Khanewal.In the Court of Senior

Through: Syed Muhammad Afaq Shah, Advocate High Court, 93-District Courts, Multan.

Opening Sheet for Civil Revisions LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE, Bench at MULTAN

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT CIVIL REVISION NO………………………/2001

Presented by Syed Muhammad Afaq Shah, Advocate High Court (Name of party or Advocate filing the petition) Petitioner (dependant) Ahmad Hassan S/o Mian Ibrahim, caste Arain. Respondent (Plaintiff or dependant) Mst. Karim Bibi sister of Hassan Basri. Orders of first court and date The court of Muhammad Boota Civil Judge, on 3/6/99 decreed the Suit. Appellate Court and date In the Court of Muhammad Aslam District Judge, Khanewal, 8.2.2001. Confirming, reversing or modifying Confirmed the decree dated 3.6.99. Original claim Suit for declaration (against the petitioner) that the respondent is the owner in possession of the suit property and defendant/petitioner has no concern with it. The registered sale deed No. 573 dated 6.5.87 and Mutation No. 7051 dated 25.5.87 are illegal, ultra vires, collusive, based on fraud, fake, fictitious and ineffected upon the rights of the plaintiff. Claim in Revision To set aside the judgment and decree and dismiss the suit. Petition under Section 115 of Act _______________ of _______________