M. Azam (c

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

C.R. No.____________/2002 Muhammad Azam etc. Vs Administrator Market Committee, etc. INDEX S. No. DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS

ANNEXES PAGES

1

Opening Sheet + Urgent Form

2

Revision Petition

3

Affidavit

4 5

Copies of Letter and Receipt Copies of Judgments

6

Copy of Plaint, Written Statement & issues E, F & F/1

33-43

7

Copy of Evidence of Parties

G&H

45-83

8

Copy of judgment and Decree(Trial Court)

J & J/1

85-91

9

Copy of Memo of Appeal, judgment and

K, K/1 &

93-103

10

Decree (Appellate Court) Copies of applications & Order

11

Application for dispensation

111

12

Affidavit

113

13

Stay Application & Affidavit.

14

Power of attorney.

1-11 13 A&B C&D

15-17 19-31

K/2 L, L/1 & L/2 105-109

115-119 121

PETITIONER, Dated: __________

Through: Hammad Afzal Bajwa, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20959

Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

C.R. No.____________/2002

1.

Muhammad Azam

2.

Muhammad Asif

Sons of

Allah Ditta, caste Sheikh, R/o Zikriya Town, Multan.

……PLAINTIFFS/PETITIONERS

VERSUS 1.

Administrator,

Market

Committee,

Multan

(presently

Chairman). 2.

Market Committee, Multan, through its Administrator (presently Chairman). …DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS

REVISION PETITION U/s 115 C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 18.7.02 passed by Ch. Muhammad Saleem the learned Additional District Judge, Multan, by which the appeal of the respondents was accepted, while the judgment & decree passed by Hafiz M. Iqbal Kalyar, the learned Civil Judge dated 14.10.2000 set aside.

CLAIM IN REVISION: To set aside the impugned judgment & decree dated 18.7.2002 passed by the learned Appellate Court and to restore the judgment & decree dated 14.10.2000 passed by the learned trial court, throughout.

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 petitioners were carrying out business in the Agricultural Produces since long, without having any shop in the New Grain Market Multan. The petitioners alongwith others submitted an application before the Minister of Agriculture Punjab, and after the proper secrutiny a letter No.2539/Est was issued to the respondents to allot a plot of 2-1/2 Marlas to each, at the rate of rent Rs. 400/- per month. In compliance of this letter the petitioners and others were allotted plots in New Grain Market, Multan. After delivering the possession to the petitioners and others, the respondents received the rent in advance and receipts were duly issued. The petitioners raised constructions on these plots after spending a lot of money from their own pocket. It was an astonishing fact, when petitioners and all others received notices from the respondents to vacate the shops. The other effecttees prepared to challenge the said notice through constitutional petitions, while the petitioners were advised to file Civil Suit. Copies of letter, receipt, and judgments of August Supreme Court are Annexes “A, B, C & D”. 3. The petitioners filed a declaratory suit to the effect that the petitioners are in possession of land measuring 2-1/2 Marlas owned by respondents, constructed by the petitioners with a request that the notice No. 6183-6/MNE dated 19.12.94 to be declared illegal, unlawful and unwarranted, having no effect on the legal rights of the petitioners. A consequential relief not to disturb the possession of the petitioners as well as restraining the respondents from demolishing the construction of the petitioners was also prayed. Copy of the plaint is Annex “E”. 4. That the suit of the petitioners was resisted on the grounds available inter-alia stating that the petitioners are not regular allottees of the disputed property, but illegally enjoying the possession of the said property. It is also alleged that the

petitioners ware not paying any rent to the respondents. The application for the interim relief was also resisted on the same points and grounds. Copy of written statement is Annex “F”. 5. That on 24.3.95, the application for interim relief of the petitioners was accepted and on the basis of divergent pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: i)

Whether the plaintiffs are tenant under the defendants? OPP

ii)

Whether the notice No. 6183-6/MMC dated 19.12.94 is against the law and facts, without authority, void and based on plaintiffs? OPP

iii)

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to declaration and permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP

iv)

Whether the plaintiffs have got no cause of action and locus standi to bring this suit? OPD

v)

Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed in view of the preliminary objection No. 2? OPD

vi)

Whether the suit is maintainable on the basis of preliminary objection No. 3? OPD

vii)

Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try this suit? OPD

viii)

Whether the suit has been deficiently valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD

ix)

Relief.

6. That the petitioners produced Muhammad Asim/P.W.1, Namet Ali/P.W.2 and Shamim Ahmad Khan/P.W.3 in ocular account, while as documentary evidence, Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.14 were produced. However, the respondents preferred to produce Ch. Qaiser Abbas/Secretary Market Committee as D.W.1. No documentary evidence was produced by the respondents. Evidence of the parties is available on Annexes “G & H”.

7. That the learned trial court, after hearing the arguments of the parties and evaluating the evidence decreed the suit of the petitioners vide judgment dated 14.10.2000. Copy of judgment & decree is attached as Annex “J & J/1”. 8. That the respondents feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court preferred to file an appeal. The petitioners in due course of proceedings of appeal and keeping in view the objections raised by the respondents/appellants filed an application under order 26, rule 119 read with section 151 C.P.C. and order 41, rule 5 read with section 151 C.P.C. The petitioners requested the learned trial court to decide both the applications for just decision of appeal in hand, but the request of the petitioners was turned down. Both the applications and appeal were decided simultaneously vide judgment & decree dated 18.7.2002. Copy of judgment & decree is attached as Annex “K & K/1”. 9. That the judgment and decree dated 18.7.2002 passed by the learned appellate court is impugned inter-alia on the following: GROUNDS i)

That the impugned judgment and decree is against the principles of natural justice and law of equity.

ii)

That the impugned judgment & decree is against the settled principles of law, justice and the letter and spirit of prevailing law.

III)

That, even the, letter No.2539/Est and receipt of rent (A&B) were admitted by the respondents/defendants, but could not be tendered in evidence, inadvertently, while the Judgments of August Supreme Court(C&D) were not in possession of petitioners at the time of filing of suit. Like wise a ground (No. iv) was taken against the record by the respondents/appellants, which was a question of fact as well. So during the course of proceedings before the appellate court, the petitioners filed two applications, one U/o 41, R-27 read with Sec-

151 & the other U/o 26, R-1, 9 read with Sec-151. The first application was to bring on the file a letter bearing No. 2539 issued by Director Agriculture & August Supreme

Court

dated

13.12.94

and

20.6.2001

respectively. The second application was for the appointment of Local Commission for the just determination of ground No. (iv) in memorandum of appeal. As per law, the learned Appellate Court was duty bound to decide both these applications before decision of the main appeal, but the learned Appellate Court committed material irregularity and decided both the applications without obtaining any reply; after deciding the main appeal. Copies of applications are Annexes “L & L/1”, while consolidated order is Annex “L/2”. iv)

That the learned appellate court decided the appeal in haste, with an order of general nature, without discussing the evidence produced by the parties.

v)

That the learned appellate court did not give its finding issue-wise and committed a material irregularity.

vi)

That the learned appellate court miserably failed to decide the case in accordance with law and procedure provided under the law.

vii)

That the judgment & decree of learned appellate court caused a great miscarriage of justice to the appellants.

viii)

That the impugned judgment & decree are illegal, unlawful, improper and unjust.

ix)

That the impugned judgment & decree is prima facie based on the flimsy grounds.

x)

That the impugned judgment & decree is fanciful and arbitrary.

xi)

That the learned appellate court could not apply its judicial mind.

In view of the above submissions, it is respectfully prayed that the judgment and decree dated 18.7.02 may please be set aside; and judgment and decree dated 14.10.2000 passed by trial court may please be restored throughout. Any other direction, order or relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit may graciously be awarded in the interest of justice and equity. Humble Appellants, Dated: ________ Through: Hamad Afzal Bajwa, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20959

Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176

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.____________/2002 Muhammad Azam etc.

Vs.

Administrator etc.

AFFIDAVIT of: Muhammad Azam S/o Allah Ditta, caste Sheikh, R/o Zikriya Town, 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 July 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.

C.M. No. _________/2002 In C.R. No.__________/2002

Muhammad Azam etc.

Vs.

Administrator etc.

APPLICATION U/S-151 C.P.C. FOR THE INTERIM RELIEF.

Respectfully Sheweth: 1.

That the contents of Civil Revision may please be treated as part & parcel of this application.

2.

That the applicants will face irreparable loss if the interim relief is not granted.

3.

That the balance of convenience and balance of justice is in favour of applicants, because the decision of the cases on the bases of technicalities are deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

4.

That the applicants have a prima facie arguable case in their favour.

5.

That the case is still on the initial stages and right of any party shall not be prejudiced.

6.

That the applicants are earning bread and butter from the shop for their families and it is the only source of income for the applicants.

7.

That the illegal of the respondents to dispossess the applicants will cause an irreparable loss to the applicants.

8.

That balance of convenience leans in favour of the applicants. In view of the above humble submissions, it is prayed that operation of judgment & decree may please be suspended till the final disposal of the revision petition. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit may graciously be awarded in the interest of justice and equity. Humble Applicants,

Dated: ________ Through: Hamad Afzal Bajwa, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20959

Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

C.M. No. _________/2002 In C.R. No.__________/2002 Muhammad Azam etc.

Vs.

Administrator etc.

AFFIDAVIT of: Muhammad Azam S/o Allah Ditta, caste Sheikh, R/o Zikriya Town, 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 July 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 C.R. No.___________/2002 Muhammad Azam etc.

Vs.

Administrator etc.

APPLICATION FOR DISPENSING WITH THE FILING OF CERTIFIED COPIES OF ANNEXURES. ========================================= Respectfully Sheweth: 1. That the above-titled application is being filed before this Hon’ble Court, the contents of which should be considered as part & parcel of the revision petition. 2. That certified copies of Annexes “

” are not

readily available. However, uncertified/photo state copies of the same have been annexed with the petition, which are true copies of the original documents. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble court may please dispense with the filing of aforesaid copies of documents. APPLICANTS, Dated: __________

Through: Hamad Afzal Bajwa, Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20959 C.C. No. 20176 IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

In re: C.M. No. ____________/2002 In C.R. No.___________/2002 Muhammad Azam etc.

Vs.

Administrator etc.

DISPENSATION APPLICATION

AFFIDAVIT of: Muhammad Azam S/o Allah Ditta, caste Sheikh, R/o Zikriya Town, 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 July 2002 that the contents of this affidavit are true & correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. DEPONENT