Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 6

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,

MULTAN.

C.M. No. __________/2001


In
C.R. No. ________/1996

Allah Bakhsh etc. Vs. Mehr Din

APPLICATION SEEKING EXERCISE OF


SUO-MOTO REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY.

Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That the above captioned revision petition was filed on
11.7.1996 in motion.

2. That the file of this case was misplaced by the office and after
a year of struggle, it was traced from the record upstair in the
office on 21.9.2001, when it was delivered by the Reception
Desk to Mr. Zafar Iqbal Khan Advocate, counsel for the
petitioners on the same day for removing office objections.
The objections were removed and C.R. is refiled on
29.9.2001.

3. That as per office report, the C.R. is barred by 81 days.

4. That cause of delay was explained in para No. 18 of the memo


of Revision Petition.

5. That both the impugned order judgment and decree were


passed on the assumption that house in dispute was
transferred to Mehr Din vide T.O. dated 20.11.1974 in respect
of plot situated in Khasra No. 18719 which is admittedly
evacuee property but this T.O. was collusively got amended
on 12.4.75 replacinig Khasra No. 1789 in place of Khasra No.
1719. Khasra No. 1789 is admittedly Muslim property,
wherein property in dispute is situated. This fraudulent
amendment was made on 12.4.75 when evacuee property laws
were repealed with effect from 1.7.1974.

6. That this illegal amendment was challenged in W.P. No. 22-


R/83 by the petitioner in W.P. No. 22-R/83. This W.P. No. 22-
R/83 was accepted and Hon’ble High Court vide order dated
12.4.2001 declared the said amendment in T.O. as without
lawful authority and of no legal effect. Copy of order passed
in W.P. is attached herewith as Annex “F”.

7. That in view of the order passed in W.P., both the impugned


orders of the executing court and the appellate court having
become void, must crumble down and the property in dispute
belonging to the petitioners is bound to be restored to him.

8. That in order to undo injustice done to the petitioners by the


fraudulent act of respondent in collusion with the Settlement
authorities by inserting Muslim property belonging to the
petitioners in the T.O. by way of unauthorised amendment, the
Hon’ble High Court, under section 115 C.P.C. can exercise
suo moto jurisdiction for which no limitation is prescribed. In
1994 S.C.M.R. 833. It was observed that High Court could
exercise suo-moto jurisdiction at any time without being
bound by any period of limitation provided it fosters the cause
of justice.
In PLD 1993 Quetta 121 the same view was taken and
it was held that: -
“The High Court has suo moto jurisdiction under
section 115 C.P.C. to examine the validity of impugned
order.”
Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that in the
interest of justice and to undo the injustice done to the
petitioners, the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to
exercise suo-moto jurisdiction under section 115 C.P.C.
Affidavit attached.
Humble Petitioners,
Dated: 29.9.2001.

Through: -
Zafar Iqbal Khan,
Advocate High Court,
124-District Courts,
Multan.
C.C. No. 2216
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

C.M. No. __________/2001


In
C.R. No. ________/1996

Allah Bakhsh etc. Vs. Mehr Din

Application for impleading the Legal Heirs of


Mehr Din deceased respondent.

Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That during the pendency of the above revision petition, Mehr
Din respondent has died. Following are the legal heirs of the
deceased respondent: -
1(A) Mst. Amna Bibi widow
1(B) Muhammad Aslam
1(C) Muhammad Akram
1(D) Muhammad Tariq of Mehr Din
1(E) Muhammad Qasim sons deceased respondent
1(F) Muhammad Khalid all residents of
1(G) Muhammad Ejaz Mohallah Hazarianwala
1(H) Mst. Irshad Bibi O/s Dehli Gate, Multan.
1(J) Mst. Shamshad Bibi daughters
1(K) Mst. Mumtaz Bibi

It is respectfully prayed that the Hon’ble Court may be


pleased to allow correction of Record by impleading legal
heirs of deceased respondent.

Petitioners,
Dated: 29.9.2001.
Through: -
Zafar Iqbal Khan,
Advocate High Court,
124-District Courts,
Multan.
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

C.M. No. __________/2001


In
C.R. No. ________/1996

Allah Bakhsh etc. Vs. Mehr Din

Application for impleading the Legal Heirs of


Mehr Din deceased respondent.

AFFIDAVIT of: -
Allah Bakhsh S/o Wahid Bakhsh, R/o Mohallah
Hazariyan, outside Dehli Gate, Multan.

I, the above named deponent do hereby


solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of
the above-mentioned application are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief
and nothing has been kept concealed thereto.

DEPONENT

Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day
of September 2001 that the contents of this
affidavit are true & correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief.
DEPONENT