Shaukat Ali 7, 11

In the Court of Muhammad Akram Rana, Civil Judge Ist Class, Multan.

Civil Suit No. 22/99 Shaukat Ali

Vs.

Province of Punjab etc.

Date of institution: 15.01.1999 Date of decision: 17.07.2002 Suit for declaration/Permanent Injunction. Application Under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C.

Present suit is instituted on behalf of the plaintiff submitting therein that the shops No. 270 & 270-A situated in Ward No. 3 Chowk Bazar, Multan City and a part of property No. 270/W-3 and the plaintiff has further submitted that it was allotted to his maternal uncle Rana Dildar by submitting refuge form for allotment of the suit property on 7.7.1959 and he was entitled for its allotment, but Deputy Settlement Commissioner temporarily transferred the same to the Pakistan Refugee Rehabilitation Finance Corporation and it was decided that thereafter it will be the refugees. The plaintiff was again claimed for the same. The plaintiff has further alleged that the same was allotted tot eh defendant No. 4 during the year 1959 by the Settlement Department which is illegal and void. Thus, he filed the appeal to the Additional Settlement Commissioner i.e. defendant No. 3. But he confirmed the allotment in favour of defendant No. 4, thus his form was rejected without cause and reason. The plaintiff has further alleged that he comes to know that defendant No. 4 has made “Tamleek” in favour of his wife i.e. defendant No. 5 and the

defendant No. 5 has further re-sold the suit property vide sale deed No. 3086 dated 10.12.1963 and she further sold the suit property to defendants No. 7 to 13 vide sale deed No. 6065 dated 10.12.1973. Therefore, the allotment and mutations in favour of the defendants are illegal and void, hence, the present suit. 2.

During the pendency of the case, the learned counsel for the

defendant No. 6 moved the present petition under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. submitting therein that he purchased the suit property through registered sale deed on 22.11.1963 from Mst. Nawab Begum i.e. defendant No. 5 in consideration of Rs. 52,000/- and the suit property as transferred to defendant No. 4 from his husband Hafiz Muhammad Yousuf (defendant No. 4) through registered Tamleek Nama dated 25.7.1962. The defendant No. 6 submitted that the defendants No. 4 & 5 have been died for the last 13/14 years and it has been known to the plaintiff, but he did not mention them in his plaint. The defendant No. 6 also submitted that he has transferred the suit property to the defendants No. 7 to 13 through sale deed and the plaintiff has filed the present suit to cancel the above sale deed for the property valuing Rs. 4,00,000/-. But, the plaintiff valued the suit property for Rs. 5,000/-, thus he failed to file the court fee in the case. Thus the suit requires to be dismissed. 3.

Plaintiff contested the present petition submitting therein that if the court fee is short, he is ready to pay the court fee as fixed by the court. The plaintiff has further submitted that he has no knowledge about the death of the defendants No. 4 and 5, if they have been died, they should have filed their death certificates and therefore, he will file the amended plaint in the case. The plaintiff has said nothing about the suit property by the defendant No.6 and “TAMLEEK” by the defendant No.5 from his land. Therefore, the present petition is filed just to prolong the case.

4.

Arguments heard. Record perused.

5.

After perusing the file and hearing the learned counsels for the parties, it has been observed that the plaintiff is seeking remedy on his form as refugee while it was allotted to the

defendant No.4 on the same ground by the Settlement Commissioner who have made “TAMLEEK” in favour of the defendant No. 5 on 25-7-1962, from whom the defendant No.6 purchased the suit property 22.11.1963 and sold it to the defendant No.7 to 13 through registered sale deed. Therefore prima facie, the case is badly taken as time barred. The plaintiff is seeking remedy on account of his form while the defendants are having their entitlement from the Settlement Department for allotment and defendants No.7 to 13 are bonafide purchaser for the suit property and their sale deed has not been challenged by the plaintiff up to the year 1999. Court fee has also not been fixed properly as per valuation. Therefore, it is held that the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit and suit is also considered time barred. Therefore, I accept the present petition under Order VII rule 11 of CPC and dismiss the suit. File be consigned to the record room after necessary preparation. Announced: 17-7-2002 S/d Civil Judge 1st Class Multan Certified that this order consists of four pages. Each page has been dictated, read, corrected and signed by me. S/d Civil Judge 1st Class Multan