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 1-11
3 Affidavit 13
4 Copies of Letter and Receipt A&B 15-17
5 Copies of Judgments C&D 19-31
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
Decree (Appellate Court) K/2
10 Copies of applications & Order L, L/1 & L/2 105-109
11 Application for dispensation 111
12 Affidavit 113
13 Stay Application & Affidavit. 115-119
14 Power of attorney. 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 Allah Ditta, caste Sheikh, R/o

Sons of
2. Muhammad Asif 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, 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

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, 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.
 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