IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,

MULTAN.

Civil Revision No._____________/2001

1. Muhammad Ibrahim S/o Atta Muhammad, caste Khosa,

President P.I.A. Employees Housing Scheme, Multan.
2. Iftikhar Ahmad S/o Khuda Bakhsh, caste Khagga, General
Secretary P.I.A. Employees Housing Scheme Multan.
3. Muhammad Iqbal S/o Muhammad Bakhsh, caste Bhutta,
Finance Secretary P.I.A. Employees Housing Scheme Multan.
4. P.I.A. Employees Housing Scheme Multan, through its
President Muhammad Ibrahim Khera.
Petitioners/Defendants
VERSUS
1. Muhammad Ramzan S/o Haji Ranjha, caste Langana, R/o Mauza
Durana Langana, Tehsil & District Multan.
Respondent/Plaintiff
2. Ch. Muhammad Aslam S/o Allah Ditta, caste Bhatti, R/o
Faizabad, New Multan.
Respondent/Defendant

Revision Petition U/s 115 C.P.C. against the

order dated 24.10.2001 passed by the
learned Civil Judge, Multan, Muhammad
Akram Rana, by which the application of
the respondent/plaintiff No. 1 U/o 13, R-2
read with section 151 C.P.C. was accepted.

Claim in Revision: -
To set aside the impugned order by
accepting this Revision Petition.
Value of suit: - Rs. 57,27,081/-

Note: - Provisions of order 43, R-4 are complied

and receipts are annexed as “H & H/1”
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 established a residential scheme under name

and style of P.I.A. Employees Housing Scheme in Mauza Durana
Langana and purchased lands for this purpose from different land
owners including the respondent No. 1. The land from respondent
No. 1 was purchased under different agreement at different rates.
The total land purchased from respondent No. 1 became 165K—
10M amounting to Rs. 1,13,56,451/-. The possession of land was
passed to the petitioners. The plots were allotted to the members
and development work is in progress at present.

3. That out of total sale price of land was paid to respondent No.1
maximum through cheques, however, nominal amounts were also
paid through receipts. The respondents No. 1 & 2 are close
friends. The respondent No. 2 remained associated with the total
business of respondent No. 1. There were some dispute between
respondents No. 1 & 2, which forced the plaintiff under malafide
intention and ulterior motive to attain his evil designs to file a
recovery suit amounting to Rs. 57,27,081/-.

4. That the respondent No. 1 contended through his suit that the
land purchased by petitioners/respondent No. 1 to 4 was in fact
176K—17M and the sale price was Rs. 1,39,37,185/ and
respondent No. 1/plaintiff has received an amount of Rs.
82,10,105/- and sum of Rs. 57,27,081/- is still outstanding
against the petitioners/defendants No. 1 to 4. However, he
admitted the transfer of possession of entire land. The certified
copy of plaint is Annex “A”.

5. That the petitioners/defendants No. 1 to 4 filed written statement

on 21.4.97 with the detail of land, agreements and mode of
payment. The respondent No. 2/defedant No. 5 filed written
 statement on 5.7.97, denying the allegations levelled against him
in the plaint. The issues were framed on 14.4.98. The certified
copies of written statement of petitioner/defendant No. 1 dated
21.4.97, written statement of respondent No. 2/defendant No. 5
dated 5.7.97 and issues are Annexes “B, C & D” respectively.

6. That the respondent No. 1/plainitff was given more than 40 dates
to produce the evidence, but, he could not produce the evidence,
while on 8.9.2001, the respondent No. 1/plaintiff instead of
producing the evidence, submitted an application under order 13,
rule 2, read with section 151 C.P.C. stating thereby that the
petitioner No. 1/defendant No. 2 had executed an agreement on
26.9.94, admitting the suit amount. This application was resisted
vehemently by the petitioners/defendants No. 1 to 4, but the
learned trial court without stating cogent reason accepted the
application vide order dated 24.10.2001. The certified copies of
application, reply and order are Annexes “E, F & G” respectively.
The copy of alleged agreement dated 26.9.94 which was supplied
with the application is Annex “J”.

7. That the order dated 24.10.2001 is impugned inter alia on the

following: -

GROUNDS

i) That the impugned order is against the natural justice

and law of equity.

ii) That the impugned order is against the law and facts of
the case.

iii) That this alleged agreement first time declared by the

respondent No. 1/plaintiff on 8.9.2001 when the
application under order 13, rule 2 read with section 151
C.P.C. was filed. Previously, neither it was stated in the
plaint nor in the “Fehrist Peshkarda” ( )
and “Fehrist Peshkarda Munhasra ( ).
Certified copes are Annexes “K & L”.
iv) That the alleged agreement is forged, fictitious and
cannot be relied upon at this belated stage.

v) That the signatures of the petitioner No. 1/defendant

No. 2 on written statement and alleged agreement if
compared, even not giving any resemblance at any
point.

vi) That the forgery in this alleged agreement speaks itself,

because this paper has no signatures of scribe. The
reason is that because the said Munshi Elahi Bakhsh
has been expired on 25.1.2001. Copy of Nishtar
Hospital Multan is Annex “M”.

vii) That the learned trial court had not passed a speaking
order and allowed the application without any support
of arguments or law.

viii) That the learned trial court miserably failed to keep the
real essence and intention of law in this regard.

ix) That the learned trial court did not mention the case law
produced during the arguments from the side of
petitioners/defendants No. 1 to 4.

x) That the impugned order has caused a great miscarriage

of justice to the petitioners.

xi) That the learned trial court has acted illegally,

unlawfully and committed material irregularity while
passing the impugned order.

Keeping in view the above-mentioned facts, it is

respectfully prayed that impugned order may kindly be
set aside and application of respondent No. 1/plainitf
may pleas be rejected with costs.
Any other writ, order, direction or relief which
this Hon’ble court deems fit, may please be extended in
the favour of petitioners to meet the ends of justice.
 HUMBLE PETITIONERS,

Dated: ___________

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

CERTIFICATE: -
Certified as per instructions of the client,
that this is the first 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.
 In re: C.M. No. _____________/2001
In
Civil Revision No._____________/2001

Muhammad Ibrahim etc. Vs Muhammad Ramzan

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.
APPLICANTS,

Dated: __________

Through: -
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20176
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.
 In re: C.M. No. _____________/2001
In
Civil Revision No._____________/2001

DISPENSATION APPLICATION.

Muhammad Ibrahim etc. Vs Muhammad Ramzan

etc.

AFFIDAVIT of: -
Muhammad Ibrahim S/o Atta Muhammad, caste Khosa,
President P.I.A. Employees Housing Scheme, 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 November 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.
 Civil Revision No._____________/2001

Muhammad Ibrahim etc. Vs Muhammad Ramzan

etc.

AFFIDAVIT of: -
Muhammad Ibrahim S/o Atta Muhammad, caste Khosa,
President P.I.A. Employees Housing Scheme, Multan.

I, the above named deponent do hereby

solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of
the above-mentioned 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 November 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.
 Civil Revision No._____________/2001

Muhammad Ibrahim etc. Vs Muhammad Ramzan

etc.

INDEX
S. No. NAME OF DOCUMENTS ANNEXES PAGES
1 Urgent Form
2 Revision Petition.
3 Affidavit
4 Copy of transfer deed. A
5 Copy of written statement of B
Petitioner/defendant No. 1.
6 Copy of written statement of C&D
respondent No. 1 and issues.
7 Copy of application, reply and order. E, F & G
8 Copy of receipts U/o 43, R-3, order. H & H/1
9 Copy of agreement. J
10 Copy of Fehrist Peshkarda K&L
& Fehrist Peshkarda Munhasra.
11 Copy of death certificate. M
12 Dispensation Application.
13 Affidavit.
14 Application U/s 151 C.P.C.
15 Affidavit.
16 Vakalatnama

PETITIONERS
Dated: ____________

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

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,

MULTAN.
 In re: C.M. No. _____________/2001
In
Civil Revision No._____________/2001

Muhammad Ibrahim etc. Vs Muhammad Ramzan

etc.

Application under section 151 C.P.C.

for the grant of Stay Orders.

Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That the above captioned petition has been filed before this
August court, which should be considered as part and parcel of
this application.

2. That the impugned order is against the natural justice and law of
equity.

3. That the impugned order is against the law and facts of the case.

4. That the alleged agreement is forged, fictitious and cannot be

relied upon at this belated stage.

5. That the learned trial court had not passed a speaking order and
allowed the application without any support of arguments or law.

6. That the learned trial court miserably failed to keep the real
essence and intention of law in this regard.

7. That if the proceedings of the case in learned trial court remain

continue, the respondent No. 1/plainitff will succeed to attain his
evil designs.

8. That the irreparable loss shall be caused to the petitioners.

9. That the balance of convenience lies with the petitioners.

 It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the
proceedings in learned trial court may please be stayed
till the final disposal of main petition.
Any other which this Hon’ble court deems fit
and proper, may kindly be granted in the interest of
justice.

Humble Applicants
Dated: __________

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

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,

MULTAN.
 In re: C.M. No. _____________/2001
In
Civil Revision No._____________/2001

STAY APPLICATION.

Muhammad Ibrahim etc. Vs Muhammad Ramzan

etc.

AFFIDAVIT of: -
Muhammad Ibrahim S/o Atta Muhammad, caste Khosa,
President P.I.A. Employees Housing Scheme, 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 November 2001 that the contents of this
affidavit are true & correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief.

DEPONENT