Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
MULTAN.
W.P. No._____________/2000
Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That names and addresses of the parties have correctly been
given for the purpose of services and summons.
2. That brief facts giving rise to the instant petition are that the
petitioner joined as J.V. Teacher on 20.5.1961 and retired after
completing the period of her service as Headmistress in
different schools working under the Municipal Committee,
Khanewal.
3. That the petitioner completed her service satisfactorily upto
the entire satisfaction of her superiors and there is no any sort
of complaint or any type of adverse remarks during entire
service of the petitioner.
4. That just before the retirement, the petitioner submitted her
documents for the finalisation and sanction of her dues, which
were the entitlement of the petitioner after the retirement.
Those documents were dully verified by the respondents and
kept for further approval and sanction.
5. That the petitioner retired on 30.09.1998. Since then nothing
was given to the petitioner from her dues. The petitioner was
oscillating from the office of one of the respondents to the
other but there was no response at all. The petitioner
submitted many applications but no response given by the
respondents. The petitioner was forced to knock at the door of
this Hon’ble Court under the constitutional jurisdiction by
filing the writ petition No. 6552/99. This writ petition was
heard by his lordship Mr. Justice Naseem Sikandar an order
dated 20.09.99 was passed. The copy of order is attached as
Annex “A”.
6. That the respondents, Municipal committee filed a C.M. No.
3601/99 and delivered a cheque of Rs. 2,70,072.02 as a sum
of Gratuity, for the other terminal benefits the petitioner was
directed to approach the respondent with a application which
was to be decided within a period of 15 days. The order on
C.M. is attached as Annex “B”.
7. That on the said C.M. the order was passed on 13.12.99 and
the petitioner submitted an application before the respondent
No. 1 on 14.12.99 which was duly received by respondent No.
2 on the same day but neither the application was decided by
the respondents nor the remaining terminal benefits are given
to the petitioner. Even the monthly pension of the petitioner is
not regularised till now. Copy of application is attached as
Annex “C”.
8. That no doubt, the dues outstanding against the respondents
are the entitlement and right of the petitioner, but she is
seriously in need of the same because the petitioner could not
marry and at this stage there is nobody to look after or provide
the necessities of life or to help the petitioner financially. The
petitioner is only dependent upon the payment, which is
outstanding in the shape of her dues against the respondents.
Due to the act and conduct of the respondents, the petitioner
became heart patient along with hypertension and also became
the victim of depression.
9. That though the respondents are under legal obligation to pay
the dues to the petitioner, but she has been deprived of without
assigning any fault, sin or crime on her part. The petitioner is
not in a position to crease the palms of the respondents or
their sub-ordinates so as to push her life.
10. That on the above facts and circumstance the petitioner, as a
last resort is left with no other efficacious, adequate, speedy as
well as alternate remedy except to agitate her grievance before
this Hon’ble Court for the redressal of her grievance, hence
this petition.
In view of the above submissions, it is
respectfully prayed that this petition may kindly be
accepted and the respondents may graciously be
directed to pay all the dues to the petitioner which are
legally required to be paid to her after her retirement in
the form of pension, leave encash and others.
Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems
just and appropriate, may also be awarded to the
petitioner in the interest of justice.
Humble Petitioner
(Hameeda Sultana)
Through: -
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Hamad Afzal Bajwa,
Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan. 28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20176 C.C. No. 20959
Certificate: -
As per instructions of my client, similar writ petition No.
6552/99 was filed in which partial relief was granted.
This petition is filed for the remaining relief.
Advocate
Note: -
Office is requested to place the record of W.P. No.
6552/99 along with this petition.
Advocate
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.
W. P. No. _____________/2000
AFFIDAVIT of: -
Mst. Hameeda Sultana d/o Late Ch. Muhammad
Hassan, R/o H.No.7, Block No. 8, Khanewal city.
DEPONENT
Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this ____ day
of June 2000 that the contents of this affidavit are
true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
DEPONENT
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.
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.
Through: -
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Hamad Afzal Bajwa,
Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan. 28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20176 C.C. No. 20959
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.
Dispensation Application
Affidavit of: -
Mst. Hameeda Sultana d/o Late Ch. Muhammad
Hassan, R/o H.No.7, Block No. 8, Khanewal city.
DEPONENT
Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day
of June 2000 that the contents of this affidavit are
true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
DEPONENT
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.
W. P. No. _____________/2000
INDEX
Through: -
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20176
Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. The titled writ petition was filed by one M. Afzal who is one
of the tenant under will along with Muhammad Sharif and
Mazhar Hussain.
2. That as the petitioner and other two tenants were not giving
the share of crop to the owners of the land/applicants as per
their entitlement, the applicants started legal proceedings
against the petitioner and other tenants.
4. That the petitioner and two others removed the produce form
the custody of Superdar without his consent, on which the
case F.I.R. No. 112/2000 dated 10.05.2000 was registered at
P.S. Chab Kalan u/s 379/188 P.P.C. against the petitioner and
others. Consequently, one Mazhar Hussain was arrested and a
part of produce/stolen property was recovered from him.
GROUNDS
Through: -
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20176
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.
Affidavit of: -
Muhammad Bakhsh S/o Wahid Bakhsh, caste Bhatti,
R/o 103/15-L, Tehsil Mian Channu, District Khanewal.
DEPONENT
Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day
of June 2000 that the contents of this affidavit are
true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
DEPONENT
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.
Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That the parties in writ petition are spouses. The marriage
dated 20.11.99 is still intact, but there is no issue from the
wedlock.
2. That due to conflict between the parties, both the parties filed
firmly suits, e.g. Recovery of Maintenance and Restitution of
conjugal rights. Both the suits were consolidated; however,
suit for maintenance was decreed, while the suit for
Restitution of Conjugal Rights was dismissed vide judgment
dated 1.6..98 by the Court of family Judge, Mr. Agha Inaum-
ur-Rahim.
3. That the applicant filed two separate appeals, before the first
appellate court. Both the appeals were accepted by S. Hamid
Hussain Shah the learned A.D.J., Multan vide judgment
dated 16.11.99.
4. That Mst. Tausif Anwar preferred to file the titled writ
petition against the applicant in the suit for Recovery of
Maintenance, when the other judgment passed in Restitution
for Conjugal Rights was not challenged.
5. That during the course of arguments, in the titled writ
petition a compromise was effected between the parties, on
the terms and conditions detailed in order dated 5.4.2000
passed by this Hon’ble Court which is Annexure “A”.
6. That as per essence of order dated 5.4.2000 the applicant
despatched a demand draft No. DIY/643263/100/06 dated
24.4.2000 amounting Rs. 72,000/- on the address of Mst.
Tauseef Anwar. (Copies of Demand Draft and despatch
receipt are Annexures “B & C”.
7. That as per settlement, the applicant, his mother along with
other relatives/respectables came Multan and visited the
residence of Muhammad Anwar, father in law of the
applicant at 10.00 a.m. on 14.5.2000, but he did not even
bother to attend all the persons. Mujahid Anwar a son of
Muhammad Anwar asked to come back at 7.00 p.m. On
second visit Muhammd Anwar was again not present but his
son Mujahid Anwar, nephews, Muhammad Safdar and
Muhammd Khan were present. They replied that Muhammad
Anwar is not willing to send Mst. Tausif Anwar. Affidavits of
mother of applicant along with relatives/respectables are
attached as Annexures “D, E, F, G & H”.
8. That the conduct of writ petitioner and her father is below the
dignity, even the family members in attendance tried to
misbehave with the visitors. They also did not honour their
commitment before this Hon’ble Court. The mother of
applicant and others tried to argue, but all the young boys
were not ready to listen the visitors and were going to be
flare up.
It is therefore, respectfully prayed that the writ
petitioner may please be directed to join the
matrimonial life with the applicant as she is living
apart without any cogent reason. The applicant is
ready to facilitate the writ petitioner upto the extent of
his means, in the compliance of order dated of this
Hon’ble Court. Anyhow, if the writ petitioner is not
going to join the matrimonial life with the applicant
she shall return the amount of Maintenance Rs.
72,000/- to the applicant, as mentioned in order
5.4.2000.
It is, further requested that an appropriate action
may please be taken against the writ petitioner and her
father for resiling from their commitment.
Any other relief, order or direction, which this
Hon’ble Court deems fit may please be issued in the
favour of applicant, in the interest of justice.
Humble Applicant
(GHULAM GHAUS)
Through: -
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20176
Affidavit of: -
Ghulam Ghaus S/o Rustam Ali, caste Rajput, R/o
147/EB, Tehsil Pakpattan, District Sahiwal.
DEPONENT
Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day
of June 2000 that the contents of this affidavit are
true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
DEPONENT
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.
Affidavit of: -
Ghulam Ghaus S/o Rustam Ali, caste Rajput, R/o
147/EB, Tehsil Pakpattan, District Sahiwal.
DEPONENT
Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day
of June 2000 that the contents of this affidavit are
true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
DEPONENT
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.
Respectfully Sheweth: -
That certified copies of Annexures A to H are not
available. However, uncertified/photo state copies of the
same have been annexed with the Petition, which are true
copies of original documents.
Through: -
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20176
INDEX
Through: -
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20176
Altaf Hussain S/o Allah Ditta, caste Bappi, R/o Mauza Panj Kooha,
Tehsil & District Multan.
Petitioner
Versus
1. The State.
2. Mazhar Abbas S/o Ghulam Hussain, caste Bappi, R/o Mauza
Panj Kooha, Tehsil & District Multan.
3. Muhammad Ali S/o Haji Ghulam Muhammad, caste Mochi,
R/o Mauza Panj Kooha, Tehsil & District Multan.
4. Rab Nawaz S/o Faiz Bakhsh, caste Bhatti, R/o Mauza Panj
Kooha, Tehsil & District Multan.
5. Mst. Mubarak Mai widow of Haji Sher Muhammad, caste
Bappi, R/o Mauza Panj Kooha, Tehsil & District Multan.
Respondents
CLAIM IN APPEAL: -
To set aside the impugned judgment and the
accused persons/respondents No. 2 to 5, be awarded
maximum punishment u/s 302/201/34 P.P.C.
Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That names and addresses of the parties are given correct for
the purpose of service of summons and citations.
2. That the above mentioned case was registered on the
statement of Altaf Hussain (PW-7), that he is a resident of
Panj Kooha and he is landlord. His uncle Sher Muhammad
(deceased) was married 10/12 years ago with one Mubarak
Bibi daughter of Sardar Muhammad, caste Bappi, resident of
Panj Kooha (respondent No. 5). From the wed-lock one
daughter and three sons were born and still alive. 2/3 months
prior to the occurrence said Mubarak Bibi established illicit
relations with Mazhar S/o Ghulam Hussain, caste Bappi,
resident of the same village (respondent No. 2) and Mazhar
used to visit the house of Haji Sher Muhammad (deceased).
Haji Sher Muhammad deceased doubted about these
relatioins. He stopped Mazhar to visit his house, reprimanded
his wife Mubarak Bibi, and started to watch both of them.
Mazhar and Mubarak Bibi felt aggrieved and launched a
programme to eliminate Haji Sher Muhammad. On the
midnight of 16/17-7-99 as per their programme when Sher
Muhammad (deceased) was sleeping in a room of his
residential house and Mubarak Bibi was sleeping with her
children in the courtyard. Mazhar, Rab Nawaz and
Muhammad Ali (respondents No. 2,3 & 4) came there.
Mubarak Bibi brought all three accused inside the room where
Haji Sher Muhammad was sleeping. All, they caught hold of
Haji Sher Muhammad. On the hue and cry of Haji Sher
Muhammad, Allah Diwaya (PW-9) and Sikandar (PW-10)
attracted to the spot. They saw that the legs of Haji Sher
Muhammad were in the hold of Rab Nawaz when the arms
were in the hold of Muhammad Ali, Mazhar was throttling the
neck of Haji Sher Muhammad, when the Mubarak Bibi was
standing beside the cot of Haji Sher Muhammad. In the sight
of eye witnesses Haji Sher Muhammad was done to death.
Mazhar accused threatened the witnesses if the occurrence
was disclosed to anyone they would also meat the same fate.
Both the eye witnesses remained silent due to the fear of their
lives. The complainant was not present at his home on the
fateful night. Next morning when he came back, Mubarak
Bibi told him that Haji Sher Muhammad had been expired due
to natural death and deceased was burried. Last night the eye
witnesses narrated whole the story to him on which he
contacted Malik Amir Member District Council and along-
with said Malik Amir he came for the registration of case. On
his statement Khawar Zaman I/S.H.O. (PW-12) registered the
F.I.R. No. 195/99 u/s 302/201/34 P.P.C. on 22.7.99 (EX. PD).
GROUNDS
viii) That the learned trial court could not appreciate the fact
of admission of guilt of accused persons before the
Punchayat. The learned trial court wrongly evaluated
this fact in the terms of extra-judicial confession. This
fact of convening the Punchayat and admission of guilt
was not seriously denied by the defence side. However,
this admission of guilt before the Punchayat is going to
strengthen the case of prosecution.
ix) That the learned trial court does not bother to discuss
the evidence of parties and miserably failed to quote the
arguments and citations offered by them and without all
these the judgment can not be termed u/s 367 Cr.P.C.
and also not curable u/s 537 Cr.P.C.
Through: -
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20176
Certificate: -
As per instructions of my client no
such appeal is ever filed before this
Hon’ble Court.
Advocate
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.
INDEX
APPELLANT
Dated:__________
Through: -
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20176
Dear Sir,
I have been directed by my client Syed Sagar Abbas Naqvi,
S/o Syed Nazar Abbas Naqvi, caste Syed Naqvi, R/o Street No. 2,
Iqbali Masjid Mohallah Islam Nagar, Multan, to serve you with this
legal notice on the following mentioned grounds: -
1. That you obtained a loan of rupees one lac (Rs. 100,000/-)
from my client on 15.8.98 for which you executed a
Promissory Note on the same day.
2. That an agreement was also executed on the same day in
which the terms and conditions for the return of this loan were
incorporated. Both the documents were dully executed in the
presence of witnesses and you received Rs. 100,000/-.
3. That it was the material condition between the parties that till
the realization of original loan/amount (one lac rupees), you
had to pay 15% of the loan per week since the date of receipt
of money and the execution of documents. Neither you have
paid 15% of this loan (Rs. 15,000/-) per week as settled in the
agreement nor you have returned the original amount. Now
ninety-three (93) weeks have been passed and the outstanding
amount with original becomes Rs. 14,95,000/-.
4. That it was also mentioned in the agreement that in case of
default, the loan shall be recovered by the sale of your
property (H. No. 9 Street No. V, Block “S” New Multan). It
was also settled that you shall be responsible for the legal
expenses incurred in recovery of the said amount.
5. That you are hereby advised to pay Rs. 14,95,000/- to my
client within one week of the receipt of this notice, otherwise,
my client reserves right to initiate legal proceedings
(Civil/Criminal) against you, and you shall be responsible for
each and every expenses incurred in the litigation along-with
the outstanding amount.
6. That you are hereby advised to keep this notice in safe
custody and same can be asked to produce in the court of law.
However a copy of this notice is retained in my office as
record.
W.P. No._____________/2000
Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That names and addresses of the parties are given correct for the
purpose of services and citations.
GROUNDS
Through: -
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20176
CERTIFICATE: -
Certified that this is the first writ on the
subject matter, no such has earlier been filed
before this Hon’ble Court.
Advocate
AFFIDAVIT of: -
Dr. Noor-ud-Din Jami, Chairman Department of
Islamic Studies, Baha-ud-Din Zakariya University,
Multan.
DEPONENT
Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this ____ day
of July 2000 that the contents of this affidavit are
true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
DEPONENT
Respectfully Sheweth: -
That certified copies of Annexures “A to G” are not
available. However, uncertified/photo state copies of the
same have been annexed with the Petition, which are true
copies of original documents.
PETITIONER
Through: -
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20176
Dispensation Application
Affidavit of: -
Dr. Noor-ud-Din Jami, Chairman Department of
Islamic Studies, Baha-ud-Din Zakariya University,
Multan.
DEPONENT
Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day
of July 2000 that the contents of this affidavit are
true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Deponent
Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That the contents of main petition may please be treated as the
integral part of this application.
2. That the prima facie applicant has a strong case in his favour.
3. That in absence of suspension of impugned Notification an
irreparable loss shall be caused to the valuable rights of the
applicant.
4. That applicant is still working as Chairman and no charge of
hand over/ take over is happened.
5. That the balance of convenience also leans in favour of
applicant.
It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the
operation of impugned Notification may please be
suspended till the final decision of main petition.
Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems
fit may please be extended in furtherance of justice.
Humble Applicant
Through: -
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Hamad Afzal Bajwa,
Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan. 28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20176 C.C. No. 20959
Affidavit of: -
Dr. Noor-ud-Din Jami, Chairman Department of
Islamic Studies, Baha-ud-Din Zakariya University,
Multan.
DEPONENT
Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day
of July 2000 that the contents of this affidavit are
true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Deponent
INDEX
Through: -
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Hamad Afzal Bajwa,
Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan. 28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20176 C.C. No. 20959
Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That this is the first bail application of the petitioner.
Previously no bail application is ever filed in any court.
2. That the present case was registered on the application of one
Khan Muhammad stating thereby that he was abducted on
26.6.99 at 7 p.m. when he was sitting at his business place by
Ghulam Sarwar Saqi Sub Inspector, Muhammad Hussain,
Muahammad Azeem and Muhammad Ramzan. He was taken
to a house near Rehman Pura where he was illegally detained
and subjected to torture. All the accused persons pressurised
the complainant to arrange Rs. 25,000/-. He contacted with his
wife on telephone who arranged the money and the same was
received by Muhammad Hussain. After that the complainant
was released with a threat that he must leave Multan for some
time otherwise he shall be done to death. F.I.R. is annexed as
Annex “A”.
3. That the petitioner is entitled for post arrest bail inter alia on
the following: -
GROUNDS
a) That the case against the petitioner is false one and is
based upon a concocted story.
b) That the F.I.R. is registered with ordinate delay,
consultation and deliberation.
c) That the petitioner is innocent and involved in this case
with the personal enmity.
d) That Ghulam Sarwar Saqi a Sub Inspector has abducted
the complainant and another and Mulazim Hussain. A
complaint was filed by both the persons and during the
inquiry, Ghulam Sarwar Saqi S.I. admitted his guilt but
in very positive sense that he arrested both the persons
in connection to discover a gang of dacoits. He
accepted the responsibility to take away both the
persons and he was hold responsible for his illegal and
unlawful act by the enquiry officer/S.P. city.
e) That during the whole process of enquiry neither the
Khan Muhammad nor any other person disclosed the
name of the petitioner to any one, but when the
complainant filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble
High Court, he disclosed the name of the petitioner first
time and errayed the petition as an accused person.
f) That the bare reading of F.I.R. does not disclose any
offence against the petitioner.
g) That the ingredients of section 365-A P.P.C. are not
completed against the petitioner because no money was
received by the petitioner.
h) That the petitioner remained on physical remand but no
recovery was effected from the petitioner. The amount
which was taken into possession by the police at the
time of arrest by the personal search planting Rs. 3000/-
upon the petitioner and such recovery has no value in
the eyes of law.
i) That the petitioner is in judicial lock-up and no more
required by the police.
j) That the investigation upto the petitioner is completed
and further detention of the petitioner could not serve
any useful purpose.
k) That the petitioner is previously non-convict also
having no record.
l) That the petitioner remained in “Tanzeem Qaumi
Razakaran, Punjab” and obtained many appreciation
certificates.
Through: -
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Hamad Afzal Bajwa,
Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan.
Ejaz Ahmad S/o Malik Rahim Bakhsh, caste Jat Thaheem, R/o E-36,
WAPDA Colony, Piran Ghaib, Multan.
Petitioner
VERSUS
1. The State.
2. Mst. Raziya Bibi, D/o Bahawal Bakhsh, caste Arain, R/o
Chah Shakir Wala, Mauza Pir Tannu, Tehsil & District
Multan.
Accused/Respondents
CLAIM IN REVISION: -
To accept the Revision Petition and enhance the
punishment of respondent No. 2 to DEATH.
Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That names and addresses of the parties are given correct for
the purpose of service of summons and citations.
5. That the respondent No. 2 got recorded her statement u/s 342
Cr.P.C. on 27.4.2000. The respondent No. 2 accepted the
charge in the answer of Q. No. 13, but taken the plea of
“Chairat”, under sudden and grave provocation. However the
respondent neither produced any defence evidence nor
appeared as a witness u/s 340 (2) Cr.P.C. Copy of statement is
Annex “D”.
GROUNDS
iv) That the learned trial court used the system of pick and
choose in the evidence of prosecution as well as in the
statement of accused.
vii) That both the dead bodies were lying separately and
were in full dresses, so the plea taken by accused/
respondent No. 2 is baseless and after thought. On the
other hand the analysis of evidence by the learned trial
court in this regard is quoted below: -
(Page 19 para 13 10th line from the bottom of judgment)
“In this respect it would be pertinent to
observe that when Mst. Raziya accused
murdered her husband Hasnain Ahmad and
Mst. Sajida according to her plea they were
found in compromising position, on account
of which, she lost her senses and out of
“Ghairat” killed both of them. From the
perusal of site plan Ex-P-G of the place of
murder prepared by Irfan Hayat Draftsman
PW-4 and the one drawn by Iqbal Hussain
S.I. one of the Investigation Officer Ex-P-N
and prosecution evidence, it is manifest and
admitted that when Mst. Raziya killed
Hasnain Ahmad and Mst. Sajida in a room
of their house, at that time their two grown
up daughters and one son were also present
and the two deceased were allegedly
committing Zina in a room not bolted from
inside during day time and when her
husband very well knowing that his wife
was also present in the house a question
strikes the mind, whether such kind of event
is possible in ordinary course of life. Normal
human conduct cannot support such a
situation. In this regard it is very interesting
to note that none of the PW’s has been given
suggestion by the defence that two victims
were killed when they were naked and after
being killed their clothes were put on to their
bodies because when the dead bodies were
taken to Doctor for autopsy, the Constable
Haq Nawaz PW-2 received the last worn
clothes of the two deceased, which were
subsequently preserved into separate
parcels. The accused Mst. Raziya had also
the option to ask for examination of her
grown up children as witnesses to falsify the
ocular account disclosed by PW-6 and PW-7
but she has not chosen this course for the
reason best known to her.
viii) That the learned trial court accepted the evidence of
PW-6 and PW-7 as eye-witnesses and other prosecution
evidence trustworthy. The finding is quoted as below: -
Humble Petitioner,
Dated: _________
(AIJAZ AHMAD)
Through: -
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20176
CERTIFICATE: -
As per instructions of my client no such
Revision Petition is ever filed before this
Hon’ble Court.
Advocate
Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That the contents of main petition may please be treated as the
integral part of this application.
2. That the prima facie applicant has a strong case in his favour.
3. That in absence of suspension of impugned Notification an
irreparable loss shall be caused to the valuable rights of the
applicant.
4. That applicant is still working as Chairman and no charge of
hand over/ take over is happened.
5. That the balance of convenience also leans in favour of
applicant.
It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the
operation of impugned Notification may please be
suspended till the final decision of main petition.
Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems
fit may please be extended in furtherance of justice.
Humble Applicant
Through: -
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Hamad Afzal Bajwa,
Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan. 28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20176 C.C. No. 20959
INDEX
Through: -
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Hamad Afzal Bajwa,
Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan. 28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20176 C.C. No. 20959
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.
C.M. No._______/2000
In
CR. No. 226/1985
Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That names and addresses of the parties have correctly been
given for the purpose of services and summons.
2. That the above mentioned Civil Revision was filed in the year
1985, which was adjourned time to time for different reasons.
3. That the titled petition was filed initially by Ch. M.A. Latif
Amratsari. the learned Advocate died on 7.11.87 and the case
was taken up by Malik Noor Muhammad Advocate. Lastly the
case was fixed on 23.11.92 in his life. The learned advocate
passed on 5.1.97.
4. That the case was fixed on 20.3.2000 and the same was
dismissed for non-prosecution.
5. That the order dated 20.3.2000 is liable to be set aside inter-
alia on the following: -
GROUNDS
i) That the case was fixed after the lapse of 7-1/2 years
and no fresh notices were issued to the parties.
ii) That the fact of sad demise was not in the knowledge of
applicants.
iii) That even the date fixed was not in the knowledge of
the applicants.
iv) That there was no fault on the part of applicants for the
absence on the date fixed.
v) That the valuable rights of the applicants are annexed
with the matter in dispute and the applicant will face
irreparable loss if case is not restored.
vi) That as soon as the fact of dismissal came to the
knowledge of applicants, the application in hand was
filed after obtaining the certified copy of impugned
order.
Keeping in view the above-mentioned
facts, it is respectfully prayed that the order dated
20.3.2000 may please be set aside and the Civil
Revision may please be restored to its original
number.
Any other relief, order or direction which
this Hon’ble Court deems fit, may please be
issued in the interest of justice.
Humble Applicants
Through: -
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20176
Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That names and addresses of the parties have correctly been
given for the purpose of services and summons.
2. That the above mentioned Civil Revision was filed in the year
1985, which was adjourned time to time for different reasons.
3. That the titled petition was filed initially by Ch. M.A. Latif
Amratsari. the learned Advocate died on 7.11.87 and the case
was taken up by Malik Noor Muhammad Advocate. Lastly the
case was fixed on 23.11.92 in his life. The learned advocate
passed on 5.1.97.
4. That the case was fixed on 20.3.2000 and the same was
dismissed for non-prosecution.
5. That the order dated 20.3.2000 is liable to be set aside inter-
alia on the following: -
GROUNDS
i) That the case was fixed after the lapse of 7-1/2 years
and no fresh notices were issued to the parties.
ii) That the fact of sad demise was not in the knowledge of
applicants.
iii) That even the date fixed was not in the knowledge of
the applicants.
iv) That there was no fault on the part of applicants for the
absence on the date fixed.
v) That the valuable rights of the applicants are annexed
with the matter in dispute and the applicant will face
irreparable loss if case is not restored.
vi) That as soon as the fact of dismissal came to the
knowledge of applicants, the application in hand was
filed after obtaining the certified copy of impugned
order.
Keeping in view the above-mentioned
facts, it is respectfully prayed that the order dated
20.3.2000 may please be set aside and the Civil
Revision may please be restored to its original
number.
Any other relief, order or direction which
this Hon’ble Court deems fit, may please be
issued in the interest of justice.
Humble Applicants
Through: -
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20176
Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That names and addresses of the parties have correctly been
given for the purpose of services and summons.
2. That the above mentioned Civil Revision was filed in the year
1985, which was adjourned time to time for different reasons.
3. That the titled petition was filed initially by Ch. M.A. Latif
Amratsari. the learned Advocate died on 7.11.87 and the case
was taken up by Malik Noor Muhammad Advocate. Lastly the
case was fixed on 23.11.92 in his life. The learned advocate
passed on 5.1.97.
4. That the case was fixed on 20.3.2000 and the same was
dismissed for non-prosecution.
5. That the order dated 20.3.2000 is liable to be set aside inter-
alia on the following: -
GROUNDS
i) That the case was fixed after the lapse of 7-1/2 years
and no fresh notices were issued to the parties.
ii) That the fact of sad demise was not in the knowledge of
applicants.
iii) That even the date fixed was not in the knowledge of
the applicants.
iv) That there was no fault on the part of applicants for the
absence on the date fixed.
v) That the valuable rights of the applicants are annexed
with the matter in dispute and the applicant will face
irreparable loss if case is not restored.
vi) That as soon as the fact of dismissal came to the
knowledge of applicants, the application in hand was
filed after obtaining the certified copy of impugned
order.
Keeping in view the above-mentioned
facts, it is respectfully prayed that the order dated
20.3.2000 may please be set aside and the Civil
Revision may please be restored to its original
number.
Any other relief, order or direction which
this Hon’ble Court deems fit, may please be
issued in the interest of justice.
Humble Applicants
Through: -
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20176
Affidavit of: -
Allah Diwaya S/o Ghulam Muhammad Alias
Ghulaman, caste Arain, R/o Jalalpur Pirwala, Tehsil
Shujabad, District Multan.
DEPONENT
Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day
of August 2000 that the contents of this affidavit
are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Deponent
Affidavit of: -
Allah Diwaya S/o Ghulam Muhammad Alias
Ghulaman, caste Arain, R/o Jalalpur Pirwala, Tehsil
Shujabad, District Multan.
DEPONENT
Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day
of August 2000 that the contents of this affidavit
are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Deponent
Affidavit of: -
Allah Diwaya S/o Ghulam Muhammad Alias
Ghulaman, caste Arain, R/o Jalalpur Pirwala, Tehsil
Shujabad, District Multan.
DEPONENT
Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day
of August 2000 that the contents of this affidavit
are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Deponent
Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That contents of application for restoration be treated as
integral part and parcel of this application.
2. That the applicant was not aware about the said demise of his
counsel, by this reason could not appear before this Hon’ble
Court personally.
3. That the case was fixed after the lapse of 7-1/2 years but no
fresh notices were issued to the parties.
4. That as soon as the fact of dismissal of Civil Revision came to
the knowledge of applicant, the restoration application is filed
within time after obtaining copies.
5. That there is no fault on the part of applicant for delay.
It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the delay for
filing the restoration application, if any, may please be
condoned.
It is further prayed that any order, direction or relief
which this Hon’ble Court deems fit, may please be granted in
the interest of justice.
Humble Applicants
Through: -
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Hamad Afzal Bajwa,
Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan.
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.
VERSUS
1. The State,
2. Taj Muhammad S/o Sher Muhammad. Khokhar, R/o
3. Muhammad Shahzad S/o Taj Muhammad. Mauza Lutf
Abad, Tehsil and District Multan.
……..Respondents/Accused
Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That names and addresses of the parties have correctly been
given for the purpose of services and summons.
Through: -
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Hamad Afzal Bajwa,
Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court,
C.C. No. 20176 C.C. No. 20959
28-District Courts, Multan.
CERTIFICATE: -
Certified that this is the first petition
on the subject matter and no such
petition has earlier been filed before
this Hon’ble Court.
Advocate
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.
AFFIDAVIT of: -
Muhammad Shafiq S/o Sher Muhammad, Jat Khokhar,
R/o H. No. 474/2 Mohallah Tibbi Sher Khan, Multan
(Chah Aima Wala, Mauza Lutf Abad, Tehsil & District
Multan).
GROUNDS
Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this ____ day of August
2000 that the contents of this affidavit are true to the best of
my knowledge and belief.
DEPONENT
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.
AFFIDAVIT of: -
Muhammad Shafiq S/o Sher Muhammad, Jat Khokhar,
R/o H. No. 474/2 Mohallah Tibbi Sher Khan, Multan
(Chah Aima Wala, Mauza Lutf Abad, Tehsil & District
Multan).
Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this ____ day of August
2000 that the contents of this affidavit are true to the best of
my knowledge and belief.
DEPONENT
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.
Respectfully Sheweth: -
That certified copy of Annexure “A” is not available.
However, uncertified/photo state copy of the same has been
annexed with the Petition, which is true copy of original
document.
APPLICANT
Dated: _________
Through: -
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Hamad Afzal Bajwa,
Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court,
C.C. No. 20176 C.C. No. 20959
28-District Courts, Multan.
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.
Dispensation Application
AFFIDAVIT of: -
Muhammad Shafiq S/o Sher Muhammad, Jat Khokhar,
R/o H. No. 474/2 Mohallah Tibbi Sher Khan, Multan
(Chah Aima Wala, Mauza Lutf Abad, Tehsil & District
Multan).
DEPONENT
Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day
of August 2000 that the contents of this affidavit
are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
DEPONENT
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.
VERSUS
1. The State,
2. Taj Muhammad S/o Sher Muhammad Khokhar, R/o Mauza
Lutf Abad, Tehsil and District Multan.
3. Syed Sakha-ur-Rehman. Ss/o Syed Noor-ul-Hassan,
4. Raza-ur-Rehman. Syed Bukhari, R/o Qadeer
Abad, Multan.
……..Respondents/Accused
Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That names and addresses of the parties have correctly been
given for the purpose of services and summons.
Through: -
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Hamad Afzal Bajwa,
Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court,
C.C. No. 20176 C.C. No. 20959
28-District Courts, Multan.
CERTIFICATE: -
Certified that this is the first petition
on the subject matter and no such
petition has earlier been filed before
this Hon’ble Court.
Advocate
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.
AFFIDAVIT of: -
Muhammad Shafiq S/o Sher Muhammad, Jat Khokhar,
R/o H. No. 474/2 Mohallah Tibbi Sher Khan, Multan
(Chah Aima Wala, Mauza Lutf Abad, Tehsil & District
Multan).
GROUNDS
Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this ____ day of August
2000 that the contents of this affidavit are true to the best of
my knowledge and belief.
DEPONENT
To,
Malik Rab Nawaz S/o Malik Khuda Bax
Caste Jat Ran, R/o 1098/X-EX Mohallah
Eidgah Officers Colony, Multan.
Dear Sir,
I have been instructed by my client Mian Sadiq Muhammad
S/o Faiz Bax, caste Jhandeer, R/o ground floor of H. No. 1098/X-EX
Mohallah Eid Gah Officers Colony, Multan to serve you with this
legal notice on the following mentioned: -
GROUNDS
1. That my client is a tenant in the property above-mentioned
owned by you. You filed an ejectment petition against my client
for the vacation of said property and the learned Rent Controller
was pleased to accept this petition on 1.7.2000 and granted a
period of two months for the vacation of the said property. My
client shall file an appeal against this order.
2. That the other portion is occupied by the tenant namely Rao
Naeem and the upper story is occupied by you as well. The
electricity meter is only installed in the portion of Rao Naeem the
other tenant and you, along-with my client are using the
electricity form the same meter. However, my client, for the fair
dealing has installed a sub-meter in portion occupied by him and
always paying his share regularly.
3. That my client is informed by the other tenant Rao Naeem that
you are pressurising him to disconnect the electricity power of
the portion of my client for which you have no such authority u/s
10 of Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 my client as a
tenant has protection upto the extent of amenities enjoying
already at the time of filing of the ejectment petition.
4. That you are hereby informed that in case of any illegality
committed by you towards my client, his rights or amenities
enjoyed by him legal proceeding (criminal/civil) shall be initiated
against you. It is advised in you better interest that let the law
make its own course in a legal way.
5. That you are hereby advised to keep this notice in safe custody
and same can be asked to produce in the court of law. However a
copy of this notice is retained in my office as record.
INDEX
Through: -
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Hamad Afzal Bajwa,
Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court,
C.C. No. 20176 C.C. No. 20959
28-District Courts, Multan.
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.
W.P. No._____________/2000
Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That names and addresses of the parties have correctly been
given for the purpose of services and summons.
4. That Zakir Ali Shah and Abid Gilani applied for the grant of
pre-arrest bail, in the court of learned Sessions Judge,
Sahiwal, which was entrusted for further hearing to the court
of Malik Peer Muhammad the learned A.S.J., Sahiwal; but
due to the Sec-7 Anti-terrorism Act, the jurisdiction of the
court of learned Additional Sessions Judge was ousted, then
both (Zakir alil Shah & Abid Gilani) submitted application for
same relief before the Judge, Anti-terrorism Court No. 1,
Multan. An application u/s 23 of Anti-terrorism Act, 1997 was
submitted by respondent No. 2 challenging the jurisdiction of
the said court, which was accepted vide order dated
19.8.2000. Copies of application and order are attached as
Annex “B & C” respectively.
GROUNDS
(ii) That the impugned order is against the law and facts of
the case.
(iii) That the learned trial court did not examine the case in
the light of Anti-terrorism Act, 1997.
(iv) That the instant case was not examined keeping in view
the vires of Sec-6 of Act ibid.
(viii) That the petitioner has lost his left eye and still under
treatment in C.M.H. Okara. His face is disfigured and
acid effected the throat from inside also.
Dated: _________
Through: -
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Hamad Afzal Bajwa,
Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court,
C.C. No. 20176 C.C. No. 20959
28-District Courts, Multan.
CERTIFICATE: -
Certified that this is the first petition
on the subject matter and no such
petition has earlier been filed before
this Hon’ble Court.
Advocate
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.
W. P. No. _____________/2000
AFFIDAVIT of: -
Muhammad Izhar Ahsan Rana, S/o Muhammad Ahsan
Rana, caste Rajput, R/o H. No. 51-Fateh Sher Colony,
Sahiwal.
DEPONENT
Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this ____ day
of August 2000 that the contents of this affidavit
are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
DEPONENT
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.
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.
PETITIONER
Dated: _________
Through: -
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Hamad Afzal Bajwa,
Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court,
C.C. No. 20176 C.C. No. 20959
28-District Courts, Multan.
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.
Dispensation Application
Affidavit of: -
Muhammad Izhar Ahsan Rana, S/o Muhammad Ahsan
Rana, caste Rajput, R/o H. No. 51-Fateh Sher Colony,
Sahiwal.
DEPONENT
Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day
of August 2000 that the contents of this affidavit
are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
DEPONENT
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.
C. M. No. _______________/2000
In
W.P. No.________________/2000
3. That the accused persons are very influential persons and under
the cover of impugned order wanted to be released by any
means.
6. That the short legal but important point is involved which can
bring the vast legal results.
7. That the applicant/petitioner has a good prima facie case & the
balance of convenience lies with him.
Therefore, it is respectfully prayed that further
proceedings in case F.I.R. No. 110/2000 dated
23.6.2000 P.S. Fateh Sher (Sahiwal) u/s 324/336/
458/148/149 P.P.C. read with Sec-7 of Anti Terrorism
Act may please be stayed till the final decision of the
main petition.
Humble Applicant
Dated: ___________
Through: -
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Hamad Afzal Bajwa,
Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court,
C.C. No. 20176 C.C. No. 20959
28-District Courts, Multan.
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.
Stay Application
Affidavit of: -
Muhammad Izhar Ahsan Rana, S/o Muhammad Ahsan
Rana, caste Rajput, R/o H. No. 51-Fateh Sher Colony,
Sahiwal.
DEPONENT
Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day
of August 2000 that the contents of this affidavit
are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
DEPONENT
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.
W. P. No. _____________/2000
INDEX
Through: -
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Hamad Afzal Bajwa,
Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court,
C.C. No. 20176 C.C. No. 20959
28-District Courts, Multan.
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.
C. M. No. ____________/2000
In
C. M. No. ____________/2000
In
W.P. No. 8263/2000
4. That the applicants have a good prima facie case in their favour.
Humble Applicants
Dated: ___________
Through: -
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Hamad Afzal Bajwa,
Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court,
C.C. No. 20176 C.C. No. 20959
28-District Courts, Multan.
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.
C. M. No. ____________/2000
In
C. M. No. ____________/2000
In
W.P. No. 8263/2000
STAY APPLICATION
AFFIDAVIT of: -
Nasir Shabbir S/o Muhammad Nawaz, caste Sayal, R/o
Chak Kaccha Maghiyana, Tehsil & District Jhang.
DEPONENT
Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day
of August 2000 that the contents of this affidavit
are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
DEPONENT
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.
C. M. No. ____________/2000
In
W.P. No. 8263/2000
INDEX
Through: -
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Hamad Afzal Bajwa,
Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court,
C.C. No. 20176 C.C. No. 20959
28-District Courts, Multan.
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
W.P. No._____________/H/2000
Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That names and addresses of the parties have correctly been
given for the purpose of services and summons.
Humble Petitioner,
Dated: ________
Through: -
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Hamad Afzal Bajwa,
Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court,
C.C. No. 20176 C.C. No. 20959
28-District Courts, Multan.
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.
W. P. No. _____________/H/2000
AFFIDAVIT of: -
Mst. Fazeela Salahuddin daughter of Salahuddin, caste
Kashmiri, R/o H. No. 24, Block No. 74, Railway
Colony, Multan.
DEPONENT
Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this ____ day
of September 2000 that the contents of this
affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge
and belief.
DEPONENT
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.
Respectfully Sheweth: -
That certified copy of Annexure is not available.
However, uncertified/photo state copy of the same has been
annexed with the Petition, which is true copy of original
document.
PETITIONER
Dated: _________
Through: -
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Hamad Afzal Bajwa,
Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court,
C.C. No. 20176 C.C. No. 20959
28-District Courts, Multan.
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.
Dispensation Application
Affidavit of: -
Mst. Fazeela Salahuddin daughter of Salahuddin, caste
Kashmiri, R/o H. No. 24, Block No. 74, Railway
Colony, Multan.
DEPONENT
Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day
of September 2000 that the contents of this
affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge
and belief.
DEPONENT
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.
W. P. No. _____________/H/2000
INDEX
PETITIONER
Dated: __________
Through: -
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Hamad Afzal Bajwa,
Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court,
C.C. No. 20176 C.C. No. 20959
28-District Courts, Multan.
LIST OF 20 CASES
6. State Vs. Ahmd Yar etc. Ch. Abdur Rashid M. Sec. 30 7.9.2000
15. State Vs. Taj etc. Special Judge, Court No. 6 18.9.2000
16. Muhammad Ramzan
Vs. Akbar etc. Sajjad Ahmad Chawan A.S.J. 10.8.2000
20. State Vs. Jameel etc. Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad A.S.J. 6.3.2000