Zafar Khan1

In the Court of Mr.
Ijaz Ahmad Chaddhar,

Additional District Judge, Lahore.
Muhammad Asad Versus Humaira Naz & another.

Family appeal (maintenance).
Muhammad Asad Versus Humaira Naz

Family appeal (Dower).
Application for seeking adjustment of hearing.
Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. The above captioned two appeals are pending adjudication
before this Hon’ble Court in which next date of hearing is
fixed as 1/10/99 for notice to the Respondents.
2. That Muhammad Asad has received a Notice from this

Hon’ble Court in a case titled “Muhammad Asad Vs Mehr
Allah Bukhsh” in which date of hearing is fixed as 7/9/99.
(Original Notice attached).
3. That no case as titled in the notice is pending before this

Hon’ble Court.
4. That it is presumed that there might be a clerical mistake in

the “title of the case” as mentioned in the notice.
5. That it is further presumed that it might be a miscellaneous

application, having been moved by the opposite party in
which date is fixed as 7/9/99. Had the copy of such matter
been attached with the notice, I would have been able to
submit written reply of the same.
6. That I, Zafar Iqbal Khan Advocate, Council for the

appellant, has recently undergone two surgical operations
and still is hospitalized to reduce severe pain. Doctors put
me under seductive injections keeping me all the time in
drowsiness or in sleep. As such I am unable to travel to
Lahore and to pursue the case.
7. That I am expected to be recovered from illness within a

period of three weeks and I Shall definitely appear before
this Hon’ble Court on 1/10/99, date already fixed for the
above mentioned two appeals.
8. That apart from the appeals, if there is some other matter

fixed for 7/9/99, the same may very graciously be adjourned
and be fixed for 1/10/99 for submission of reply and
arguments. I promise not to seek further adjournment in this
case.
Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed

(i) In the interest of justice, herein of the matter
pertaining to the notice fixed for 7/9/99 (notice
attached) may be adjourned and be fixed for 1/10/99,
date already fixed for the two appeals.
(ii) Applicant be directed to issue me a copy of the said

matter to enable me to submit reply and arguments in
the fixed date, just to avoid further delay.
Yours obediently,
Zafar Iqbal Khan

Advocate High Court.
Street No. 8 Usmanabd
Colony, Multan.
In the Court of Mr. Ijaz Ahmad Chaddhar,
Additional District Judge, Lahore.
Muhammad Asad Versus Humaira Naz & another.

Family appeal (maintenance).
Muhammad Asad Versus Humaira Naz

Family appeal (Dower).
Application for seeking adjustment of hearing.
AFFIDAVIT of: -
Zafar Iqbal Advocate High Court, Multan.
I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly

affirm and declare that the contents of the above
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 September, 1999 that the contents of this
affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge and
belief.
DEPONENT
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE.
W.P. No. _______________/2000
Muhammad Asad S/o Maher Allah Bakhsh, caste Siyal

Bharwana, R/o Mauza Satiana, Tehsil & District Jhang.
Petitioner
Versus
1. Mst. Humera Naz daughter of Mian Khuda Bakhsh, caste
Kanjoo.
2. Maste Usama (minor) S/o Muhammad Asad, caste Siyal
Bharwana, through Mst. Humera Naz (his real mother).
Both residents of 504, M Block, Model Town Extension Scheme,
Lahore.
3. Mr. Ijaz Ahmad Chaddhar, Additional District Judge, Lahore.
4. Mr. Muhammad Shafiq, Civil Judge/Judge Family, Lahore.
Respondents
Writ Petition under Article 199

of the Constitution of Islamic
Republic of Pakistan 1973.
1. That the petitioner and respondent No. 1 married together at
Chaniyot Tehsil & District Jhang on 21.10.94. Respondent
No. 2, the only issue, was born on 26.9.95 out of the wedlock.
Thereafter, the petitioner, through a written divorce deed
dated 12.2.98, divorced irrevocably to respondent No. 1 by
pronouncing “Talaq” thrice in one sitting. Photocopy of
written divorce deed is attached as Annexure “A”.
2. That the respondents No. 1 & 2, on 10.3.98 filed a suit against

the petitioner for grant of maintenance allowance in the Court
of Family Judge, Lahore. Another suit for recovery of Dower
amount was also filed by respondent No. 1 against the
petitioner in the same Court. Copy of the plaint in
maintenance suit is Annexure “B”.
3. That the petitioner contested both the suits. The learned Judge,
Family Court consolidated both the suits and framed
following consolidated issues on 20.3.99: -
No. 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for
maintenance allowance; if so, at what rate and for which
period. OPP.
No. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for
recovery of dower amount of Rs. 105,000/- as prayed for.
OPP.
No. 3. Relief.
4. That after recording the evidence of parties and hearing

arguments, the learned Judge, Family Court decreed both the
suits in favour of the respondents vide single consolidated
judgment dated 5.7.99 impugned. Respondent No. 1 was
allowed past maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per
month w.e.f. September 1995 to 6.12.1998 plus the period of
“Iddat” i.e. three months. The total amount of maintenance
was worked out by the learned court as Rs. 420,000/-
Rs. 1500/- per month was fixed as past maintenance
allowance for respondent No. 2 (minor) from September 1995
to July 1999 which was worked out by the learned Court as
Rs. 63,000/-. Respondent No. 2 was also allowed future
maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month
with 10% annual increase till arising of any legal disability.
It was further ordered that Rs. 15,000/- which were admittedly
paid by the petitioner to the respondents in lieu of
maintenance shall be adjusted from the past maintenance
allowance of respondent No. 1. Copy of judgment of the Trial
Court is annexed as Annexure “C” & copy of decree as
Annexure “C/1”. Copies of plaintiff’s oral & documentary
evidence are Annexure “D” & “D/1” respectively. Copies of
defendant’s oral as well as documentary evidence are
Annexure “E” & “E/1” respectively.
5. That aggrieved of the judgment and decree, the petitioner/

defendant filed two separate appeals against the decrees of
dower and maintenance in the Court of learned District Judge,
Lahore. A third appeal was also filed on behalf of respondent
No. 2 /minor/plaintiff seeking enhancement of quantum of
maintenance. All the three appeals were heard and disposed
off by respondent No. 3 vide one consolidated judgment dated
8.4.2000 whereby he dismissed the two appeals filed by the
petitioner and accepted minor’s appeal by modifying the
decree for maintenance allowance enhancing the quantum of
maintenance from Rs. 3000/- to Rs. 5,000/- per month. Copy
of memo of appeal is Annexure “F”. Copy of Memo of appeal
of respondent No. 2 is Annexure “G”. Copy of consolidated
Appellate Judgment and decree is Annexure “H & H/1”.
6. That both the judgment and decrees passed by respondent No.

3 and respondent No. 4 are illegal and without lawful
authority inter alia on the following
GROUNDS
i) Under Article 2-A of the Constitution, matter of

maintenance is to be decided according to Muslim Law.
Under Muslim Law there is no scope for grant of past
maintenance to wife and child. The learned Judge
family Court as well as Appellate Court had no
jurisdiction to grant past maintenance to respondents
No. 1 & 2 for the period from September 1995 to
10.3.1998 when the suit was filed. The impugned
judgment and decree of both the learned Courts below
are against the injunctions of Islam, therefore, illegal.
ii) That the petitioner pronounced “TALAQ” thrice in one

sitting and sent the written divorce deed dated 12.2.98
to the respondent No. 1. This irrevocable divorce had
become effective immediately on its execution. Sec.
313 of Muhammadan Law reads: “Divorce in writing
operates an irrevocable divorce and takes effect
immediately on its execution.” Sec. 7 of the Muslim
Family Law Ordinance 1961 providing for the
effectiveness of Talaq on receipt of notice by the
Chairman is against the injunctions of Quran and
Sunnah. In 1992 SCMR 1273 it was held: “Muslim
Family Laws Ordinance-sec. 7 read with Article 2(a) of
the Constitution”---- A divorce becomes effective even
in absence of notice to the Chairman u/s 7.
Ineffectiveness of divorce, in the absence of a notice to
the Chairman as envisaged by sec. 7 was against
injunctions of Islam. 1990 CLC 1983 and PLD 1988
Kar. 169 at 173 it was held that sec. 7 of the Muslim
Family Law ordinance relating to divorce are repugnant
to injunctions of Islam. In a recent Judgment of the
Federel Shariat Court PLD 2000 FSC 1 it is declared
that sec. 7 (3) (5) of Muslim Family Law Ordinance
1961 are repugnant to injunctions of Islam.
iii) That in view of the above-mentioned law declared by

the Superior Courts, divorce to respondent No. 1 was
effective from the date 12.2.98 it was written and sent
to her as such her suit for recovery of maintenance filed
on 10.3.98 was not maintainable. Sec. 278 of
Muhammadan Law reads: “If the husband neglects or
refuses to maintain his wife without any lawful cause,
the wife may sue him for maintenance, but she is not
entitled to a decree for past maintenance, unless
claim is based on a specific agreement.” In NLR 1991
SD 347 it was held: “Maintenance to wife under
Islamic law. There is no scope for past maintenance to
wife. In 1990 MLD 344 at 345 (e) “Suit for
maintenance by a divorced wife is not maintainable”.
Both the learned Courts below had failed to consider
this legal aspect of the matter and as such the judgment
and decrees of both the Courts below are illegal.
iv) That suit for maintenance of the minor child was also
not maintainable, as there was no refusal or neglect on
the part of he father/petitioner to maintain his child.
Respondent No. 1 had admitted before court that
petitioner had paid her Rs. 15,000/- as maintenance
allowance for the child after his birth. It was further
admitted by respondent No. 1 that gold ornaments
weighing 40 Tolas were also given to her by the
petitioner at the time of marriage. This was explained
by the petitioner that on the asking of her parents, these
ornaments were given to her not as a gift, but just to
enhance the prestige of her family in the “Bradri” of the
respondent and these ornaments were returnable to the
petitioner afterwards. But admittedly, these ornaments,
the price of which is Rs. 250,000/- are with the
respondent No. 1 which amount is more than sufficient
for the maintenance of child even till he attains
majority. The learned Court below had failed to take
note of these material admissions of the respondent No.
1 and as such had failed to exercise jurisdiction vested
in them.
v) That the petitioner for the purpose of bringing his child

up had made an application for the custody of the minor
firstly to the learned Guardian Judge, Jhang, when
respondent No. 1, in order to defeat the petitioner’s
application, removed the minor from Jhang where she
permanently resides, to Lahore. The petitioner, then
made another application before the learned Guardian
Judge, Lahore for the custody of his minor son which is
still pending adjudication. Respondent No. 1, having
removed the minor from the constructive custody of the
petitioner, has lost right of “HAZANAT”. The
petitioner as such is not under legal obligation to pay
the maintenance allowance through his divorced
mother. Both the learned Courts below, while making
the judgments and decrees have lost sight of this legal
aspect of the matter rendering the judgments illegal.
vi) That both the impugned judgments suffer from non-

reading of material evidence of record. The petitioner’s
documentary evidence Ex D1 to Ex D7 and Mark D &
E were material for ascertaining the financial position
of the petitioner. Both the learned Courts below have
failed to consider this material evidence and illegally
and arbitrarily proceeded to decide the important
question of quantum of maintenance without first
ascertaining the financial position and annual income of
the petitioner. This non-reading of material evidence
has rendered the judgments illegal and without lawful
authority. 1994 MLD 574 it was held: “Determination
of rate of maintenance payable by father to his son
without determining monthly income of father and
without taking into consideration evidence on record is
illegal and liable to be set aside”.
vii) In PLD 1958 West Pakistan Lah. 596 held:

“Muhammadan Law—past maintenance cannot be
claimed from father unless previously fixed by the
Court”
In 1991 CLC 766 it was held: “Muslim family law
ordinance sec. 9—Past maintenance cannot be granted
to minor but application of father for custody of minor
being pending before Guardian Judge, future
maintenance till decision of application could be
granted to minor.”
viii) That Mr. Zafar Iqbal Khan advocate counsel for the
petitioner/defendant in the maintenance suit and appeal
had referred as many as 19 authorities and provisions of
law and handed over to the learned judges Photostat
copies of these authorities and legal references with a
typed index to facilitate their perusal. But the learned
judges had failed to consider, refer or discuss these
authorities in their judgments. Had the learned judges
perused these authorities, the judgments would have
been different. Copy of the typed index of authorities
referred to is attached with this petition.
Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that

the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to accept this
writ petition and declare both the impugned
judgments and decrees passed by the respondents
No. 3 & 4 respectively as illegal and without
lawful authority and to dismiss the plaintiff’s suit
for maintenance with costs.
Any other relief, which in the wisdom of

this Hon’ble Court is adequate, may be awarded.
Petitioner,
Through: -
Zafar Iqbal Khan,
Advocate High Court,
124-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 2216.
W.P. No. _______________/2000
Muhammad Asad Versus Mst. Humera Naz etc.
Affidavit of: -
I, the above named deponent do hereby

solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of
the above 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 April 2000 that the contents of this affidavit
are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
DEPONENT
W.P. No. _______________/2000
APPLICATION FOR STAY.
1. That the above captioned petition has been filed before this
Hon’ble Court.
2. That the contents of the writ petition may be read as part of

this application.
3. That the impugned judgment and decree is illegal and without

lawful authority and the same are very likely to be declared as
such.
4. That under Muhammadan Law, there is no scope for past

maintenance of wife and child and suit for maintenance of a
divorced wife is not maintainable.
5. That an application for father for the custody of minor

respondent No. 2 is pending in the Court of learned Guardian
Judge, Lahore for the last two years. The mother having
removed the minor from constructive custody of the father,
has lost right of HAZANAT and as such the petitioner/father
is not bound to maintain his child through child’s divorced
mother. However, the petitioner/father is prepared to pay
future maintenance to his minor son, respondent No. 2
tentatively at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month till the decision
of the present writ petition and thereafter, he undertakes to
comply with the orders regarding the quantum of maintenance
fixed by this Hon’ble Court.
6. That in view of the above submissions, the petitioner has a

good prima facie case, balance of convenience also tilts in
favour of the petitioner and in view of the illegality of the
judgments and decrees impugned, the Petitioner shall suffer
an irreparable loss in case these are acted upon.
7. That the respondents No. 1 and 2 are bent upon to get the
petitioner arrested forthwith through execution of decree.
Therefore, it is respectfully prayed that judgment

and decree passed by the respondents No. 3 & 4
impugned be suspended and petitioner be allowed to
pay future maintenance to the minor child respondent
No. 2 at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month tentatively till
the decision of the writ petition and whereafter, the
petitioner undertakes to comply with the orders passed
by this Hon’ble Court regarding quantum of
maintenance of the minor child.
Humble Applicant
Through: -
Zafar Iqbal Khan,
C.C. No. 2216.
W.P. No. _______________/2000
Stay Application
Affidavit of: -

the above application are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has
DEPONENT
Verification: -
DEPONENT
W.P. No. _______________/2000

Petitioner
Versus
1. Mst. Humera Naz daughter of Mian Khuda Bakhsh, caste
Kanjoo.
2. Mr. Ijaz Ahmad Chaddhar, Additional District Judge, Lahore.
3. Mr. Muhammad Shafiq, Civil Judge/Judge Family, Lahore.
Respondents
Writ Petition under Article 199
of the Constitution of Islamic
Republic of Pakistan 1973.
1. That the appellant and respondent No. 1 were married
together on 21.10.94 at Chaniyot Tehsil & District Jhang.
Appellant at the time of Nikah fixed Rs. 5,000/- as prompt
dower only.
2. That compelled by the unavoidable circumstances, the

appellant divorced respondent No. 1 irrevocably vide written
divorce deed 12.2.98. Photostat copy of divorce deed is
Annexure “A”.
3. That on 12.11.98, respondent No. 1 filed a suit for the

recovery of her dower in the court of Family judge, Lahore
claiming therein that her prompt dower was fixed as Rs.
5,000/- and a further dower of Rs. 100,000/- was also fixed as
deferred dower and the whole dower amount was not paid to
her. Copy of plaint is Annexure “B”.
4. That appellant contested the suit claiming that only a sum of
Rs. 5,000/- was fixed as prompt dower which was paid there
and then and nothing remained unpaid and that the entry in
Nikah Nama pertaining to deferred dower of Rs. 100,000/- is
forged and might have been added sometimes afterwards
without the knowledge and consent of the appellant. He
further pleaded at the time of Nikah only one Part of Nikha
Nama was filled in wherein the dower amount was entered as
Rs. 5,000/- prompt only and whole dower was entered as paid.
The remaining 3 Parts of Nikah Nama were kept blank and
that second Part of Nikah Nama meant for bridegroom was
not delivered to him. This fact was however, admitted by the
plaintiff/respondent No. 1 while appearing as PW2 that both
Parts of Nikah Nama meant for bridegroom and bride were in
possession of her father and both were produced by them as
P1 and also again P1. Copy of written statement is Annexure
“C”.
5. That the learned Judge, Family Court framed issues, recorded

evidence of the parties and after hearing arguments, delivered
the judgment and decree for recovery of Rs. 100,000/- as
dower amount in favour of respondent No. 1, relevant issue is:
“Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for

recovery of dower amount of Rs. 105,000/- as prayed
for? OPP.”
Copy of the impugned judgment and decree passed by the
judge family court are Annexure “D” & “D/1”. Copy of
plaintiff’s oral evidence PW1 to PW4 (Annexure “E”) and
copy of the plaintiff’s documentary evidence relevant to the
suit for maintenance ExP1 dated 10.4.99 WxP1 dated 2.11.98
is Annexure “E/1”. Copy of petitioner’s/defendant’s oral
evidence is Annexure “F”.
6. That aggrieved of judgment and decree the petitioner/

defendant filed appeal in the Court of learned District Judge,
Lahore which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated
8.4.2000 passed by respondent No. 2. Copy of memo of
appeal is Annexure “G”. Copy of Appellate judgment and
decree is Annexure “H”.
7. That the judgment and decree of both the courts being the
result of misreading of document ExP1 Nikah Nama, is illegal
and without lawful authority.
8. That from the language of Nikah Nama ExP1 which was

exhibited on 2.11.98, it is clear from its Column No. 13 that
Rs. 5,000/- was fixed as dower only and in Column No. 14 it
reads that whole of the dower was paid. In this Column, an
addition of Rs. 100,000/- deferred was clearly visible to be
added afterwards, which is forgery. Both the learned Courts,
respondents No. 2 & 3 have committed error of law by
misreading the document and ignoring its operative part and
confining itself to the force of writing clearly visible to be
forged and added afterwards. Especially in the circumstances
that both the copies of Nikah Nama meant for bride and
bridegroom were retained by the father of the bride
(respondent No. 1) admittedly. The inference is that bride’s
father from the very beginning had the intention to forge the
Nikah Nama especially when admittedly the Nikah Khawan
had friendly relationships with the father of the bride for the
last fifty years. Copy of Nikah Nama P1 exhibited on 2.11.98
is Annexure “G” and the third Part of Nikah Nama also
produced by respondent No. 1 and exhibited on 10.4.99 is
Annexure “I”.
Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that this

Hon’ble Court may be pleased to accept the Writ
Petition and to declare both the judgments and decrees
passed by the respondents No. 2 & 3 as illegal and
without lawful authority. Petitioner’s affidavit in
support of the writ petition is attached herewith.
Humble Petitioner
Through: -
Zafar Iqbal Khan,
C.C. No. 2216.
W.P. No. _______________/2000
Affidavit of: -

the above petition are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge and belief and nothing has
DEPONENT
Verification: -
DEPONENT
W.P. No. _______________/2000
APPLICATION FOR STAY.
Hon’ble Court.
2. That the contents of the writ petition may be read as part of

this application.
3. That the judgment and decree passed by respondents No. 2

and 3 are the result of misreading of document ExP1. The
petitioner has fixed dower amount as Rs. 5,000/- which was
paid there and then admittedly and an addition of Rs.
100,000/- as deferred dower is forged and respondent No. 1
cannot be allowed to reap benefit of her own forgery.
4. That in view of the above submissions, the petitioner has a

good prima facie case, balance of convenience also tilts in
favour of the petitioner and in view of the illegality of the
judgments and decrees impugned, the Petitioner shall suffer
an irreparable loss in case these are acted upon.
5. That the respondent No. 1 is bent upon to get the petitioner

arrested forthwith through execution of decree.
Hon’ble Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned
judgment and decree for the recovery of dower amount
till the decision of this petition. An affidavit is attached
herewith.
Humble Applicant
Through: -
Zafar Iqbal Khan,
C.C. No. 2216.
W.P. No. _______________/2000
Stay Application
Affidavit of: -

DEPONENT
Verification: -
DEPONENT
IN THE COURT OF CH. MUSHTAQ AHMAD
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MULTAN.
Mst. Khursheed Begum etc.

Versus
Malik Aashiq Muhammad etc.
CIVIL APPEAL
List of Books referred to on behalf of respondents.
ISSUE NO. 4: VALUATION OF SUIT: -
S.No.
1 1980 CLC 1878 (C),
2 PLJ 1982 Lah 356 (ii) &
3 PLD 1991 AJK 66 Held: Declaratory Suit on the basis
(B & C) of inheritance with consequential
relief of possession, held, matter
governed by section 7 (iv) (c) of the
Court Fee Act.
Issue No. 2 Whether defendants No. 2 to 4

are grand children of Jamal Din deceased: -
4 Article 129 (g)

Qanun-e-Shahadat withholding of evidence--- effect
---defendants No. 2 to 4 had
failed to appear as their own
witnesses---evidence so withheld
would adversely effect on the
defence pleaded by defendants.
Issue No. V (a) Whether Suit is time-barred

5 Article 142
Limitation Act: 12 years from date of
dispossession.
Note: vide ExP10 date of
dispossession 4.4.1976.
Suit filed on 8.3.1988 as such within
12 years.
6 1981 SCMR 765 Limitation---Plaintiff alleging to

have been dispossessed within 12
years of filing of suit---Article 142
Limitation Act is applicable. Suit
within time.
Issue No. V (b) Adverse possession.

7 1991 SCMR 2063 Provision of section 28 Limitation
Act---declared as repugnant to
injunctions of Islam.
Zaffar Iqbal Khan,

Advocate
(Counsel for the respondents)
IN THE COURT OF CH. MUHAMMAD MASOOD AKHTAR
KHAN, JUDGE BANKING COURT NO. III, MULTAN.
National Bnak Vs. M/s Shah Jee Cloth house.
Suit for recovery of Rs. 3,67,532/-

Application for leave to defend the suit.
1. That the above captioned suit is pending before this Hon’ble
Court in which next date is fixed as 6.6.2000.
2. That the defendant had no knowledge of the institution of this
suit nor service of notice was effected on him. It is only a day
before when he reached home from Karachi were he had been
in connection with his business since about a month, when he
came to know about the institution of the above suit. This
application is being submitted without any loss of time, hence
within time from the date of knowledge.
3. That the applicant had paid the principle amount in
installments within very short intervals and it seems that the
plaintiff bank illegally adjusted it towards the interest/mark-
up. The statements of accounts from Feb 1991uptil now are
not correct and need to be proved and corrected.
4. That it has been declared by the Federal Shariat Court, also by
the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
that mark-up is also a kind of ‘Riba’ which is “Haram” and as
such directed the repeal of interest act and declared that the
act shall cease to have effect from 31st March 2000.
In view of the above repeal, no court in Pakistan can
decree any amount in the name of interest.
5. That in case the interest is deleted, nothing would be left
towards the Principal amount which is paid, rather it would be
found that the payments made by the applicant would be over
and above the Principal amount.
PLD 1992 FSC I, PLD 2000 SC 225, PLD 1987 466,
PLD 1989 K 304 are relied upon.
6. That no presumption of truth is attached to the statement of
account as held by a D.B. of the Lahore High Court in a case
2000 CLC 847.
application be allowed and applicant be permitted to
defend the suit interalia on the above grounds.
Affidavit is attached.
Applicant/Defendant
(Muhammad Jameel Shah)
Through: -
Zafar Iqbal Khan,
C.C. No. 2216.
IN THE COURT OF CH. MUHAMMAD MASOOD AKHTAR
KHAN, JUDGE BANKING COURT NO. III, MULTAN.
National Bnak Vs. M/s Shah Jee Cloth house.
Application for leave to defend the suit.
Affidavit of: -
Muhammad Jameel Shah S/o Muhammad Yamin Shah,
R/o Shop No. 94/RH Ward No. 5 Kalay Mandi Inside
Bohar Gate, Multan.

DEPONENT
Verification: -
of June 2000 that the contents of this affidavit are
true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
DEPONENT
To,
The District Manager/Manager Recovery,
H.B.F.C., Multan.
Subject: - RECOVERY NOTICE.

L/a No. 0601513-1
Dear Sir,
In reply to your Notice dated 8.8.2000 for recovery of Rs.
65,211/-, copy of which is attached, it is submitted that I have
already paid whole amount of loan along-with simple interest as per
decision of the court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Multan dated
31.7.95. After rendition of account, the learned court found that legal
notice then issued to me by the H.B.F.C. was illegal and that in
addition to the amount already paid a further sum of Rs. 29,178/-
only is due and directed me to pay the same before 30.9.95, which
amount was deposited by me in the account of H.B.F.C. on 24.9.95
and as such the whole amount is paid and nothing is due. Copy of
Judgment & Decree of the learned Senior Civil Judge and copy of
receipt of Rs. 29,178/- is attached herewith.
Against the judgment and decree, H.B.F.C. filed an appeal in
the court of District Judge, Multan which appeal was dismissed on
7.12.97. No further action was taken by the H.B.F.C. and judgment
and decree of the learned Senior Civil Judge has attained finality.
In view of the above facts, your present notice is illegal
and amounts to contempt of court. You are requested in your
own interest to issue me clearance certificate and return my
papers and depledge my property within a period of one
month, failing which I shall be constrained against you to
contempt proceedings.
Sincerely yours,
Dated: 4.9.2000
Zafar Iqbal Khan,
Advocate
H.No. 888-43-K/4
Usmanabad, Multan.
IN THE COURT OF MR. JAHANGIR ALI SHEIKH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, PUNJAB LABOUR COURT NO. 9,
MULTAN.
1. Chief Engineer.
2. The Superintending Engineer.
3. The Executive Engineer.
Applicants
Versus
1. Hazoor Bakhsh S/o Ghulam Rasool.

2. Abdul Hafiz S/o Muhammad Sharif.
3. Abdul Sallam S/o Karim Bakhsh.
4. Muhammad Ramzan S/o Muhammad Bakhsh.
5. Muhammad Hussain S/o Faiz Bakhsh.
6. Ghulam Farid S/o Mehr Bakhsh.
7. Malik Sohanra S/o Ahmad Yar.
8. Noor Muhammad S/o Ghulam Hussain.
9. Allah Bakhsh S/o Hayat Khan.
10.Abdul Karim S/o Ameer Bakhsh.
11.Abdul Hakim S/o Mahmood Khan.
12.Muhammad Rafiq S/o Ghulam Farid.
13.Muhammad Rafiq S/o Koray Khan.
14.Riaz Ahmad S/o Faiz Muhammad.
15.Muhammad Imran S/o Liaqut Ali.
16.Ghulam Sarwar S/o Ahmad Bakhsh.
17.Ghulam Farid S/o Ahmad Bakhsh.
18.Khameesa Khan S/o Khuda Bakhsh.
All posted under the Executive Engineer River Diversion
Division, Baseera District Muzaffargarh.
Respondents
Application for setting aside

Ex-parte judgment dated 31.7.2000.
1. That petition No. 115/99 U/s 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969 was
pending before this Hon’ble Court in which date of hearing of
stay application was fixed as 26.6.2000, but due to non-
appearance of the respondents, they were proceeded against
ex-parte and thereafter on 31.7.2000, ex-parte judgment was
given whereby the petition U/s 25-A of the I.R.O. was
allowed.
2. That the applicants came to know of this ex-parte judgment
only a day before when the decree holder produced the ex-
parte judgment for implementation. Hence this application.
3. That the applicants, being Govt. servants in the Irrigation
Department, they were duty bound to remain on the site of the
river flooded area to make arrangements to save the zone from
flood destruction, during the flood season commencing from
the months from 1st June to 15 October and as such non-
appearance of the applicants during this period was not
intentional but due to being over busy in the work of public
importance.
4. That keeping in view this difficulty, Government engaged Mr.
Zafar Iqbal Khan advocate to pursue the case.
5. That realising the above-mentioned difficulty of the
applicants, Mr. Zafar Iqbal Khan advocate promised to inform
the applicants as to wen their personal appearance before the
court is necessary.
6. That on 26.5.2000, applicants’ counsel was present in the
Court when next date was fixed as 26.6.2000 for arguments
on the stay application. The counsel entered this date on his
envelope but unfortunately, his clerk inadvertently missed to
enter the date in the diary of cases and as such the brief of the
case could not be put up before him an evening before the
date and therefore, the counsel in the rush of work forgot the
case. The non-appearance of the counsel in the court was not
intentional but due to non-entry of the case in his diary of the
cases.
7. That the valuable right of the Govt. is injured by the ex-parte
judgment and in case the ex-parte judgment is not set aside,
the department shall have to face great difficulty as the
finance department of Govt. of Punjab has not sanctioned any
regular or temporary posts of Baildars/Chowkidar. The
petitioners are being paid from maintenance and repair budget
for flood embankment. They are being paid against the works
of the division on work charge basis and after completion of
the periodical flood time maintenance work, their services
could become redundant. Mere fact that they have served for
more than nine months could not make them a permanent
work-man. In absence of any right guaranteed, their could be
no grievance and as such the petition under section 25-A of
the I.R.O. was not maintainable.
Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that in the
interest of justice, the order dated 26.6.2000 of ex-parte
proceedings against the applicants and the ex-parte
judgment dated 31.7.2000 may kindly be set aside and
after giving the applicants opportunity to contest, the
case be decided on merits.
Affidavits of one of the applicants and of Zafar
Iqbal Khan advocate counsel for the applicants and
Photostate copies of the envelope and counsel’s case
diary are attached herewith.
Applicants
1. ____________
Dated: 9.9.2000 2. ____________
3. ____________
Through: -
Zafar Iqbal Khan,
Advocate
H.No. 888-43-K/4
Usmanabad, Multan.

MULTAN.
Chief Engineer etc. Vs. Hazoor Bakhsh etc.

AFFIDAVIT of: -
Zafar Iqbal Advocate High Court, Multan,
C.C. No. 2216.

DEPONENT
Verification: -
belief.
DEPONENT
MULTAN.
Chief Engineer etc. Vs. Hazoor Bakhsh etc.

AFFIDAVIT of: -
Muhammad Nasrullah Bhatti, the Executive Engineer,
posted under the Executive Engineer River Diversion
Division, Baseera District Muzaffargarh.

DEPONENT
Verification: -
belief.
DEPONENT
IN THE COURT OF JUDGE SPECIAL BANKING COURT,
MULTAN.
Anees-ur-Rehman Khan S/o Abdul Ghani Khan, caste Bhutta, R/o

Back side Riaz House, Alamdar Gillani Street, New Shalimar
Colony, Bosan Road, Multan.
……PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
Small Business Finance Corporation through Manager/Recovery

officer, L.M.Q. Road, Dera Adda near Telephone Echange, Mangol
Hotel, Multan.
…..DEFENDANT
Suit for Mandatory Injunction directing the

defendant to act upon their own concessional
scheme by allowing the plaintiff to render the
account finally by making payment of 10%
interest in addition to the additional loan
amount or in the alternate suit for the rendition
of account and for the permanent injunction
restraining the defendant from adopting
coercive measures for the recovery of any
undue amount in addition to the above-
mentioned amount of concessional scheme.
1. That the plaintiff obtained a loan of Rs. 250,000/- from the

defendant in the year of 1994-95 on the Surety of Mr. Abdul
Ghani Khan son of Sultan Khan. This loan was to be paid
back by the year 2001 in installments.
2. That the plaintiff started business of Electronics, but it failed
due to non-availability of further funds, and plaintiff suffered
a considerable loss and consequently business failed.
3. That, however, the above mentioned loan was paid back to the
defendant in the following installments: -
Receipt No. Dated Amount paid
(i) 37217 24.8.94 Rs. 15,343/-
(ii) 64903 10.6.96 Rs. 30,000/-
(iii) 00307 21.3.97 Rs. 15,000/-
(iv) 35859 25.6.98 Rs. 45,000/-
(v) 30516 14.4.99 Rs. 22,000/-
(vi) 21576 29.4.99 Rs. 30,000/-
(vii) 18496 22.5.99 Rs. 30,000/-
(viii) 36266 19.6.99 Rs. 40,000/-
(ix) 07165 6.4.2000 Rs. 25,000/-
(x) Court deposit 18.10.2000 Rs. 15,000/-
Total amount paid: Rs. 267,343/-
4. That a heavy amount as compound interest is being demanded

by the defendant from the plaintiff, which is against the
injunctions of Islam. Due to total failure in the said business
plaintiff has become bankrupt & cannot pay any more money
in the name of interest.
5. That in view of the above payments, the plaintiff has already

paid the Principal amount of Rs. 250,000/- and Rs. 17,343/-
towards interest.
6. That as per concessional scheme introduced by defendant, the

total amount along-with interest makes out Rs. 275,000/- out
of which the plaintiff had already paid a sum of Rs. 267,343/-
and as such the remaining unpaid amount is Rs. 7,657/- which
the plaintiff is ready to pay.
7. That the plaintiff previously filed a suit for permanent
injunction and for rendition of accounts against the defendant.
During the pendency of suit, the defendant himself introduced
the above-mentioned concessional scheme. In that scheme, it
was a condition precedent that in order to avail benefit of the
said concessional scheme, no suit should be pending in the
court.
8. That keeping in view this condition, the Hon’ble Court of Ch.

Muhammad Masood Akhtar Khan, Judge Banking Court III
Multan, vide order dated 30.10.2000 dismissed the suit in
order to enable the plaintiff to qualify for the scheme and to
avail benefit of the said concessional scheme.
9. That the next day, plaintiff approached the defendant through

Rao Atiq-ur-Rehman, officer incharge of the loan section, and
requested him to issue Challan Receipt for payment of the
remaining amount of Rs. 7,657/- but he flatly refused to act
upon the defendant’s own offer of concessional scheme and
instead issued a Challan receipt of Rs. 22,555/- as 1st
installment and further made three installments of Rs.
30,075/- each to be paid with interval of one month each.
10. That such demand of the defendant is illegal and against the
spirit of concessional scheme offered by him.
11. That the defendant is bound to abide by the offer of the

concessional scheme offered by himself and the plaintiff has
accepted the offer and shown his willingness to pay the
remaining amount of Rs. 7,657/- within the date fixed for the
same and as such, it is now unfair & illegal for the defendant
to avoid his own offer.
12. That cause of action firstly arose a week before when the
plaintiff wanted to make payment of the remaining above said
amount and defendant refused to abide by his own offer of
concessional scheme.
13. That loan facility was availed in Multan, its repayment was to
be made in Multan, and defendant’s office is situated in
Multan, hence, this Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to entertain
the present suit.
14. That value of suit for Permanent mandatory injunction is fixed

at Rs. 200/- and a court fee of Rs. 10/- is fixed for the
alternative relief of rendition of accounts.
Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that a decree

for Permanent Mandatory Injunction directing the
defendant to abide by his own offer of concessional
scheme and allow the plaintiff to deposit the remaining
sum of Rs. 7,657/- as per concessional scheme. In the
alternate, decree for rendition of accounts be passed in
favour of plaintiff and against the defendant. Costs of
the suit may also be awarded.
Any other relief, which the Hon’ble Court deems

fit, in the circumstances of the case, may also be
awarded.
Plaintiff
Dated: ____________ (Anees-ur-Rehman Khan)
Through: -
Zafar Iqbal Khan,
Advocate
H.No. 888-43-K/4
Usmanabad, Multan.
Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan this ____
day of November 2000 that all the
contents of the above plaint are true
and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief.
Plaintiff
MULTAN.
Anees-ur-Rehman Khan Vs. S.B.F.C.
SUIT FOR MANDATORY INJUNCTION

STAY APPLICATION
1. That the above captioned suit has been filed before this
Hon’ble court.
2. That the averments made in the suit may be read as part of this
application.
3. That the defendant himself introduced a concessional scheme

and offered that the loanees should pay 10% interest in
addition to the original loan amount.
4. That the plaintiff accepted their offer and showed his

willingness to pay the balance amount of Rs. 7,657/- so as to
clear the whole loan amount along-with interest as he had
already deposited a sum of Rs. 267,343/-.
5. That the defendant is legally bound to abide by his own offer

of concessional scheme and after its acceptance by the
plaintiff, the defendant cannot legally back out his own offer.
6. That defendant instead of issuing a Challan receipt for the

remaining amount of Rs. 7,657/-, unduly and illegally issued a
Challan receipt of Rs. 22,555/- to be paid by 10.11.2000 and
further directed the plaintiff to deposit 3 installments of Rs.
30,075/- each within interval of one month.
7. That such demand of defendant is illegal and undue.
8. That the defendant is bent upon to recover the above

mentioned undue amount by adopting coercive measures.
9. That in view of the grounds mentioned in the suit, there are

bright chances of success of plaintiff’s suit. In case the
plaintiff adopts the coercive measures like arrest, the plaintiff
shall suffer irreparable loss in addition to loss of repute and
liberty.
10. That balance of convenience also tilts in favour of the

plaintiff/petitioner.

defendant be restrained from adopting any coercive
measures for the recovery of any amount more than the
amount of Rs. 7,657/- only due.
Affidavit is attached herewith.
Applicant
Dated: ____________ (Anees-ur-Rehman Khan)
Through: -
Zafar Iqbal Khan,
Advocate
H.No. 888-43-K/4
Usmanabad, Multan.
MULTAN.
Anees-ur-Rehman Khan Vs. S.B.F.C.
STAY APPLICATION
AFFIDAVIT of: -
Anees-ur-Rehman Khan S/o Abdul Ghani Khan, caste

Bhutta, R/o Back side Riaz House, Alamdar Gillani
Street, New Shalimar Colony, Bosan Road, Multan.

DEPONENT
Verification: -
day of November, 2000 that the contents of this
affidavit are true & correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief.
DEPONENT
IN THE COURT OF MR. MEHMOOD HAROON ESQUIRE
CIVIL JUDGE, IST CLASS, MULTAN.
Malik Javed Mukhtiar Vs Malik Javed Iqbal
Suit for declaration & for Permanent Injunction
AUTHORITIES REFERRED TO BY THE

PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL
Issue No. 7:
Whether Sale Deed was executed by Malik Allah Yar
in favour of the defendant lawfully & with
consideration. OPD.
1. Article 79 Qanoon If a document is required by

Shahadat, 1984. law to be attested, it shall not
be used as evidence until two
attesting witnesses at least
have been called for the
purpose of proving its
execution.
2. NLR 1984 SCJ 32 S-74 (2)---Evidence Act—

Document does not become a
public document merely
because it is registered---
registered document in order
to be a public document has
to be one execution of which
is not disputed---refusal to
grant permission to produce
certified copies of documents
whose execution is denied---
unexceptionable.
3. 1986 CLC 2836 Evidence Act, S.13--

Documents---evidenctry value
of a document is altogether
different from its
admissibility and it is always
for court to determine as to
what weight is to be attached
to a particular document
brought on record.
4. PLD 1973 SC 160 Evidence Act, SS 47, 67 &

145, C.P.C. XIII Rule 4---
documents which are not
copies of judicial record,
should not be received in
evidence without proof of
signatures and hand writing of
persons alleged to have
signed or written them, even
if such documents are brought
on record and exhibited
without objection.
5. PLD 1977 K 688 Registration Act, S.60 read

with Evidence Act, SS 67 &
79---Execution of deeds to be
proved under section 67
Evidence Act by showing that
thumb impression and
signatures affixed thereto
were those of executants---
endorsement by Registrar in
certificate raises only
presumption against
executant.
6. NLR 1986 Civil 146 Evidence Act, S.68—personal

c at 147 relying on a document is
bound to prove its
execution---fact that
document is registered would
make no difference.
7. 2000 CLC 419 T.P. Act, S.54---Sale of

g at 420 immovable property---mere
registration of Sale Deed
would not operate to pass
titled to the vendee---where
there was neither the
possession of the property
alleged to have been sold nor
any proof of payment of
consideration money was
available, mere registration of
sale deed would not operate to
pass title to the vendee.
8. PLD 1984 SC (AJK) 138 Registration Act, S.74---

e at 139 Registration of documents by
Registrar---natuere of
proceedings---Registrar when
registering a document under
section 74 held neither a court
nor performing judicial
functions---findings of
registrar about executions in
such proceedings, held, not
judicial finding.
9. NLR 1983 UC 528 Evidence Act, S.65---

Secondary evidence---order
for production of secondary
evidence passed without
determining existence of
original documents---illegal.
10. PLD 1981 Kar 588 Evidence Act, S.65---

Secondary Evidence---when
original destroyed or lost or
for any other reason not
arising out of default or
neglect---attributed default or
neglect proved---held, in the
circumstances, photo-state of
document---inadmissible.
11. 1989 CLC 1883 Evidence Act, S.67---Copies

j at page 1885 of documents other than
judicial record cannot be
received in evidence without
proof of signature and hand
writing---in absence of
original document, its copy
was not admissible.
12. 2000 MLD 1653 Qanoon Shahadat—Article 74

d at 1655 & 87---Certified copy of
pubic document though was
admissible per se and could
be received in evidence, but
where certified copy of a
private document forming
part of public record was
deemed to be produced in
evidence and the execution as
well as existence of
documents was denied, then
secondary evidence by way of
certified copy could not be
received unless existence of
original and its loss and
destruction was proved.
13. PLD 1979 BJ 31e Execution of a registered

document denied---production
per se of a certified copy of
such document, held, no proof
of document having been
executed by person form
whom it purports to be
executed---Evidence Act,
S.68.
14. 2000 MLD 201 Article 73 & 74 Qanoon

c at page 902 Shahadat---primary and best
evidence should be
produced--- production of
photo-state copy had no
evidentiary value at all and
would deserve to be kept out
of consideration.
15. NLR 1994 SD 631 Evidence Act, S.90---

production of copy of deed
does not raise presumption of
due execution of original.
16. PLD 1991 Lhr 400 DB Production of copies of
documents was violative of
the provisions of article 75
Qanoon Shahadat whereby
documents must be proved by
primary evidence except in
cases therein mentioned.
17. 1992 CLC 1304 Qanoon Shahadat Article

e at page 1305
72---Court cannot act on
copies of documents where
original had not been
produced without any reason.
Issue No. 7-A: -

Whether the disputed document is based on Fraud
and misrepresentation.
18. 1995 CLC 1906 at 1907 Contract Act, S.19---Qanoon

Shahadat Art. 118---Plea of
fraud and misrepresentation---
onus to prove---where plea of
fraud and misrepresentation in
execution of document had
been pleaded by plaintiff, the
moment he had made
statement on oath, onus would
shift to defendant to prove
that document in question was
executed voluntary and of
free will.
Issue No. 2: -
Whether the suit is time barred. OPD
19. 2000 CLC 150 b Specific Relief Act, S.42---
Suit for declaration---
Limitation---Any body whose
ownership or possessory
rights were interefered or
threatened, might come to the
civil court at any time when
the same stood threatened---
no question of limitation
arose in such cases.
20. PLD 1993 Quetta 37 c Specific Relief Act, S.42---

Limitation Act, Art. 120---
Suit for declaration and
permanent injunction---period
available to plaintiff was six
years from cause of action.
21. NLR 1993 Rev. 143 b Limitation Act, Art. 120---Six

years limitation time for filing
declaratoy suit involving
challenge to entry in
Jamabandi starts from date of
knowledge of entry in
Jamabandi.
Issue No. 4: -
Whether value of suit not properly fixed. OPD
22. 1980 CLC 1878 c Court Fees Act, S.7 (iv) (c)---
Suit for declaratory decree
and consequential relief---
main relief being that of
declaration base on ownership
on basis of inheritance---relief
for possession sought only
consequentially---matter,
held, governed by section
7(iv) c---value already put by
plaintiff, held further, would
remain value for purpose
court fee in appeal as well---
Specific Relief Act, S.42
23. PLD 1991 AJK 66 Court Fee Act , S.7 (iv) (c)---
Specific Relief Act, S.42---
Court fee payable on suit for
declaration and consequential
relief of possession---where
plaintiff could not ask for
main relief of possession
without asking for a
declaration, such suit would
be one for declaration with
consequential relief for
possession---suit in such a
case would be covered by
provision of 7 (iv) (c) Court
Fee Act---where from the
nature of the suit,
consequential relief could be
allowed only when plaintiff
through declaration from
competent court had
succeeded in removing by
other obstacle then in such
like cases declaration would
be the real necessity for
obtaining the real relief from
the court.
Referred to by: -
Zaffar Iqbal Khan,
Advocate,
Counsel for the plaintiff.
Dated: 29.9.2000
IN THE COURT OF DEPUTY LAND COMMISSIONER,
MULTAN.
1. Habib Khan
2. Allah Wasaya Ss/o Muhammad Ramzan
3. Muhammad Nawaz
4. Haq Nawaz
5. Barkhurdar Ss/o Muhammad Bukhsh
6. Fazil
7. Imam Bukhsh
8. Sardar Muhammad Ss/o Khan Muhammad
9. Ameer Bukhsh
10.Ahmad Bukhsh
11.Ramzan Ss/o Lal Khan
12.Allah Yar Ss/o Muhammad Bukhsh
13.Barkhurdar Both deceased represented by
their legal heirs.
12-A. Ramzan
12-B. Ahmad Bukhsh Ss/o Lal Khan.
14.Muhammad Hussain
15.Muhammad Sadiq Ss/o Karim Bukhsh
16.Muhammad Nawaz
17.Rahim Bukhsh deceased S/o Barkhurdar, represented by his legal
heirs.
17.A. Muhammad Fazil
17.B. Muhammad Babar Sons
17.C. Ghulam Fatima
17.D. Nusrat Parween Daughters
17.E. Bharanwan Mai ------ Widow
Caste Jat Sial, R/o Mouza Lutfabad, Tehsil and District
Multan.
…………..Plaintiffs
VERSUS
Haji Muhammad Hayat Khan S/o Ahmad Khan, caste Jat, Bosan,
R/o Mouza Bosan Tehsil Multan.
…………Respondent
1. That Mst. Sahib Khatoon, the predecessor-in-interest of the
respondent, was a declarant under the Land Reforms Act,
1977.
2. That in the first instance her holding was determined by the
Deputy Land Commissioner, Multan, vide his order dated
28.6.1977, to the extent of 8973 p.i.u.s and the excess land
equivalent to 973 p.i.us. was resumed in favour of Land
Commission vide Mutation No. 503 dated 24.3.79. (Copy
Annex “A”).
3. That case of Ms.t Sahib Khatoon was reopened under the

instructions of Punjab Land Commission dated 20.2.1980
because the Tube-well irrigated soil had not been evaluated
according to rules. Consequently, her holding was re-assessed
to be equivalent to 9336 p.i.us. by the Additional Deputy
Commissioner (General)/Deputy Land Commissioner,
Multan, vide his order dated 13.5.87 and in this way excess
land equivalent to 1336 p.i.us. was found to be resumable
from her.
4. That an area equal to 973 p.i.us. had already been resumed

and therefore, an additional area equal to 363 p.i.us. was
resumable which was accordingly resumed out of Khasra No.
5/24, 25, 8/4, 7, 14, 16, 17, 21/4, 24 measuring 72 kanals 10
marlas situated in village Lutfabad, Tehsil & District Multan
according to the choice filed by the said declarant.
5. That the land so resumed had already been alienated by way

of sale by Mst. Sahib Khatoon, the declarant, in favour of
Habib Khan and others, the petitioners vide Sale Mutation No.
626 dated 21.11.80 (Copy at Annex “B”).
6. That during the process of compliance of orders of Deputy

Land Commissioner, Multan dated 13.5.87 the Revenue Field
Staff reported the District Collector, Multan that Mutation No.
626 dated 21.11.80 had already been given effect to in the
Register Haqdaran Zamin for the year 1980-81. The learned
District Collector, Multan vide his order dated 30.5.1991,
accorded permission to review the said Mutaion NO. 626
dated 21.11.80, so that the orders of the Deputy Land
Commissioner, Multan dated 13.5.87 be complied with and
consequently the sale Mutation No. 626 dated 21.11.80
recording sale of Land in favour of the petitioner was
reviewed and the land belonging to them was resumed in
favour of Punjab Land Commission. Copy of Review
Mutation No. 1804 dated 31.8.94 and copy of Mutation No.
1805 dated 31.8.94 and copy of Mutation No. 503 dated
24.3.79 are Annexes “C, D & E”.
7. That during the review proceedings before the learned District

Collector Multan, Mst. Sahib Khatoon, the original declarant,
died issueless and her only heir Malik Muhammad Hayat
Khan Bosan, her real brother, the respondent herein, was
impleaded to represent her.
8. That the impugned order dated 30.5.91 for review of Sale

Mutation No. 626 dated 21.11.80 in favour of petitioners, is
against all cannons of justice and illegal which has resulted in
depriving the petitioners of the property. The learned District
Collector Multan, while making the order had failed to
consider that the land in Mutation No. 626 was owned and
possessed by the petitioners and Mst. Sahib Khatoon, the
declarant, having already sold the land to the petitioners, she
was no more owner of this land and as such she, while
exercising her choice could not possibly surrender the land
which was neither owned by her nor was in her possession,
nor the Deputy Land Commissioner could legally entertain
her such choice of surrender. The order so passed is illegal and
without lawful authority which has resulted in grave
miscarriage of justice.
9. That the petitioners are illiterate simpleton villagers who

never understood the proceedings of Revision of Mutation No.
626. They were given understanding that their rights of
ownership and possession of the land in question shall not be
disturbed. Petitioners are still in possession of the land and
they were informed that their such land had been alienated in
favour of Punjab Land Commission through review mutation.
Only a few days before they came to know of this review
order through Patwari Halqa, hence this petition.

respondent be called upon/directed to surrender the land
belonging to him and Sale Mutation No. 626 dated
21.11.80 Mouza Lutfabad be restored in favour of the
petitioners. Affidavit is attached herewith.
Petitioners,
Dated: __________
Through: -
Zafar Iqbal Khan,
Advocate
124-District Courts,
Multan.
MULTAN.
Habib Khan etc. Vs. Haji Muhammad Hayat Khan Bosan
STAY APPLICATION.
Hon’ble Court.
2. That the land surrounded by Mst. Sahib Khatoon, predecessor
in interest of the respondent, was neither owned nor possessed
by her. The said land had already been sold by her in favour of
the petitioners vide Mutation No. 626 dated 21.11.80 and they
are in possession of the said land as owner since then.
3. That the petitioners are now being threatened by the Revenue
Field Staff for surrendering possession of the Land
Commission. In case they are deprived of their possession of
land, they shall suffer irreparable loss as loss of possession
has already been considered by the higher courts as
irreparable loss.
4. That petitioners being owner in possession of the land well
before the re-opening of the case, as such their present
petition is very likely to be accepted. Balance of convenience
also tilts in favour of the petitioners.
Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that order be
passed not to interfere in ownership and possessory
rights of the petitioners till disposal of this petition.
Affidavit attached.
Petitioners/Applicants
Dated: __________
Through: -
Zafar Iqbal Khan,
Advocate
124-District Courts,
Multan.
MULTAN.
Habib Khan etc. Vs. Haji Muhammad Hayat Khan Bosan
STAY APPLICATION.
Affidavit of: -
Habib Khan S/o Muhammad Ramzan, caste Jat Sial,
R/o Mouza Lutfabad, Tehsil & District Multan.

DEPONENT
Verification: -
of October 2000 that the contents of this affidavit
DEPONENT

Zafar Khan1

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Zafar Khan1

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

In the Court of Mr.

Ijaz Ahmad Chaddhar,

Muhammad Asad Versus Humaira Naz & another.

Muhammad Asad Versus Humaira Naz

Application for seeking adjustment of hearing.

2. That Muhammad Asad has received a Notice from this

3. That no case as titled in the notice is pending before this

4. That it is presumed that there might be a clerical mistake in

5. That it is further presumed that it might be a miscellaneous

6. That I, Zafar Iqbal Khan Advocate, Council for the

7. That I am expected to be recovered from illness within a

8. That apart from the appeals, if there is some other matter

Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed

(ii) Applicant be directed to issue me a copy of the said

Zafar Iqbal Khan

Muhammad Asad Versus Humaira Naz & another.

Muhammad Asad Versus Humaira Naz

Application for seeking adjustment of hearing.

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly

Verified on oath at Multan, this_____

W.P. No. _______________/2000

Muhammad Asad S/o Maher Allah Bakhsh, caste Siyal

Writ Petition under Article 199

2. That the respondents No. 1 & 2, on 10.3.98 filed a suit against

4. That after recording the evidence of parties and hearing

5. That aggrieved of the judgment and decree, the petitioner/

6. That both the judgment and decrees passed by respondent No.

i) Under Article 2-A of the Constitution, matter of

ii) That the petitioner pronounced “TALAQ” thrice in one

iii) That in view of the above-mentioned law declared by

v) That the petitioner for the purpose of bringing his child

vi) That both the impugned judgments suffer from non-

vii) In PLD 1958 West Pakistan Lah. 596 held:

Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that

Any other relief, which in the wisdom of

W.P. No. _______________/2000

Muhammad Asad Versus Mst. Humera Naz etc.

I, the above named deponent do hereby

W.P. No. _______________/2000

Muhammad Asad Versus Mst. Humera Naz etc.

APPLICATION FOR STAY.

2. That the contents of the writ petition may be read as part of

3. That the impugned judgment and decree is illegal and without

4. That under Muhammadan Law, there is no scope for past

5. That an application for father for the custody of minor

6. That in view of the above submissions, the petitioner has a

Therefore, it is respectfully prayed that judgment

W.P. No. _______________/2000

Muhammad Asad Versus Mst. Humera Naz etc.

I, the above named deponent do hereby

W.P. No. _______________/2000

Muhammad Asad S/o Maher Allah Bakhsh, caste Siyal

2. That compelled by the unavoidable circumstances, the

3. That on 12.11.98, respondent No. 1 filed a suit for the

5. That the learned Judge, Family Court framed issues, recorded

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for

6. That aggrieved of judgment and decree the petitioner/

8. That from the language of Nikah Nama ExP1 which was

Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that this

W.P. No. _______________/2000

Muhammad Asad Versus Mst. Humera Naz etc.

I, the above named deponent do hereby

W.P. No. _______________/2000