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. Muhammad Tariq sons of Amanat Ali, nephews of
3. Shahid Ali 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) Relief.

7. 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 C/8
dated 5.10.95
P.W.9 M. Saleem dated 20.11.95 C/9
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
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 Judgment of the court of Muhammad E
Boota Shahid, Civil Judge, Khanewal
dated 3.6.99.
13 Decree dated 3.6.99. F
14 Memo of Appeal dated 5.7.99. G
15 Better copy.
16 Judgment in the court of Muhammad H
Aslam Choudhary Distt. Judge,
Khanewal dated 8.2.2001.
17 Decree dated 8.2.2001. I
18 Stay Application.
19 Affidavit.
20 Vakalatnama

Dated: ____________
 Civil Judge, Khanewal.In the Court of Senior

Instituted

Court Date
21.2.88

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

Decided

Court Date
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
3.6.99
Judge, Khanewal.In the Court of District

Instituted

Court Date
5.7.99
Ch. Distt. Judge Khwl.In the Court of M.Aslam

FIRST APPEAL

Decided
CIVIL REVISION NO………………………/2001
Bench at MULTAN

Court Date
Through: -

Opening Sheet for Civil Revisions

8.2.2001
LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE,

in English Court.Date for filing petition

Value for purposes of injunction.

Advocate High Court,

200/-
93-District Courts, Multan.

Court fee.Value for purposes of

200/-
Syed Muhammad Afaq Shah,

Amount of Court fee on petition

15/-
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 in-
effected 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 _______________