IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE RAWALPINDI.

Muhammad Naeem son of Muhammad Hafeez Resident of House No.

C-43 Satellite Town Rawalpindi.

Petitioner

VERSUS

1. Syeda Salma Rehman

2. Syeda Amna Rehman (daughters of Abdul Rehman Late)
3. Tallat Shaheen widow of Abdul Rehman (late) residents of house

No. 944, Street No. 11/1, Islamabad.

4. Chairman TCS, Plot No. 101/104, Aviation Club Road, Airport,

Karachi.
5. TCS G office, 228, Khadim Hussain Road, Lalkurti Rawalpindi.
6. TCS Zonal office Kurry Road Rawalpindi.

Respondents

REVISION AGAINST ORDERS DATED 19-04-2016 and 25-6-16

PASSED BY RAO EJAZ AHMED CIVIL JUDGE 1 ST CLASS
RAWALPINDI, WHEREBY HE DISMISSED APPLICATION OF
PETITIONER UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 CPC AND STRUCK OFF
RIGHT OF FILING WRITTEN STATEMENT.
CLAIM IN REVISION; SETTING A SIDE OF IMPUGNED ORDERs
DATED 19-04-16 and 25-06-2016 AND ACCEPTANCE OF
APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 CPC.

GROUNDS OF REVISION:

1. That impugned order is against law and facts.

2. That perusal of interim orders sheet it is floating on the surface

of record that after passing order dated 19-4-2016 case was not

fixed for filing of written statement. Only on 21-6-16, for the first

time case was fixed for filing of written statement on 25-6-2016

and only 4 days time was granted which is against Order 8 Rules

1 and 10 CPC. Even otherwise Order 8 Rule 10 CPC, is

applicable only on Order 8 Rule 9 CPC and not under Order 8

Rule 1 CPC. Thus the impugned order dated 25-6-2016 is not

tenable in the eyes of law.

3. That Honorable trial court committed illegalities and

irregularities while passing impugned order.

4. That Honorable trial court exercised the jurisdiction which was

not vested in it and failed to exercise the jurisdiction which was

vested in it.
5. That bare perusal contents of plaint it is crystal clear that suit

for permanent and mandatory injunction is barred by law

governing the subject. The prayer made by Respondents No. 1 to

3/Plaintiffs relates to money which does not come with in the

ambit of irreparable loss. Thus the suit is also barred by

sections 55 and 56 of SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT. So Honorable trial

court was under legal obligation to reject plaint under clause (d)

of Rule 11 Order 7 CPC.

6. That by perusal of contents of plaint, it is also apparent on the

face of record that plaintiffs have not claimed any exclusive

ownership rather they alleged themselves as co-owners. Thus

the only remedy available to plaintiffs is to proceed with already

pending suit for partition and rendition of account wherein

preliminary decree was passed on 02-10-1996 and report of

local commission qua partition of suit property has been

submitted. Petitioner has been held co-owner to the extent of

88/180 share. Thus the plaint does not disclose any cause of

action hence liable to be rejected. However Honorable trail court

failed to appreciate this legal aspect of the case which resulted in

miscarriage of justice.
 It is therefore respectfully prayed that instant revision be

accepted. Impugned orders 19-04-2016 n 25-6-16 be set

aside. Petition under order 7 rule 11 CPC be accepted and

plaint of respondents 1 to 3/Plaintiffs be rejected.

Petitioner

Through

MUHAMMAD ILYAS SHEIKH

ADVOCATE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN

AYESHA HAMEED RANA SARDAR NABEEL RAZA

ADVOCATE HIGH COURT ADVOCATE HIGH COURT

TARIQ NAEEM AWAN

ADVOCATE
Certificate:

I, the above named petitioner, do, hereby, certify that this is first Revision Petition

moved against above dated Order.

Petitioner