Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Zia Shahid

Zia Shahid

Ratings: (0)|Views: 949 |Likes:
Published by api-3745637

More info:

Published by: api-3745637 on Oct 15, 2008
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

03/18/2014

pdf

text

original

In the Lahore High Court, Bench at Bahawalpur.
C.R. No._____________/2001
1.
Zia Shahid Chief Editor
Daily Khabrain
2.
Adnan Awais
Editor
12-Lawrence Road, Lahore.
Petitioners/Defendants
VERSUS
1. Rana Ikram Ullah Khan S/o Abdul Hamid Khan, caste Rajpoot,
R/o 56-Lawyers Colony, Bahawal Nagar.
Respondent/Plaintiff
2. Khushnood Ali Khan Chief Editor Daily \u201cSahafat\u201d Umer Market,
Iqbal Town, Lahore.
Respondent/Defendant

Revision Petition U/s 115 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 19.6.2001, 13.4.2001 and Ex-parte decree dated 31.7.2000 passed by Mr. Abdul Rehman Khan, the learned A.D.J. Bahawal Nagar, Ch. Muhammad Zafar Iqbal the learned Civil Judge, Bahawal Nagar, respectively.

Claim in Revision: -

To set aside the both impugned orders & Ex-parte decree and petitioners be allowed to participate in the proceedings of suit accordingly.

Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That the names and addresses of the parties have correctly been
given for the purpose of their summons and citations.

2. That the respondent No. 1 filed a recovery suit amounting to Rs. 24,900/- as damages in the court of Senior Civil Judge, Bahawal Nagar against the petitioner and respondent No. 2. This suit was ex-parte decreed on 31.7.2000. The copies of plaint, oral evidence, documentary evidence and judgment along-with decree sheet are Annexes \u201cA, A/1, A/2 & A/3\u201d respectively.

3. That as well as the petitioners received the information of decree dated 31.7.2000 the petitioner filed an application under order 9, rule 13 along-with an application for the suspension of operation of decree on 13.11.2000, for which the reply was filed on 9.1.2001. The learned Trial Court, without framing any issue, fixed the case for arguments and on 13.4.2001, without mentioning any time upon the order sheet. In fact the application for interim relief was fixed for arguments, but the main application was dismissed as well. Copies of application, reply and order sheet are Annexes \u201cB, B/1 and B/3\u201d respectively.

4. That the petitioners filed an appeal on 12.5.2001 along-with an application after interim relief against the order dated 13.4.2001. This appeal was dismissed vide order dated 19.6.2001. The copies of Grounds of appeal, order sheet and impugned order are Annexes \u201cC, C/1 & C/2\u201d.

5. That the ex-parte decree and both the impugned orders are liable
to be set aside inter alia on the following: -
GROUNDS
a)
That ex-parte decree and both the orders are passed
against the canons of natural justice and law of equity.
b)
That the learned trial court as well as appeal court acted
arbitrarily and against the prevailing law.
c)

That during the proceedings of suit, the proper procedure for the service of petitioners was not adopted. The real sense of order 5, rules 20 & 21 C.P.C. was not taken into consideration.

d)

That the publication in the daily \u201cSaadat\u201d was also against the provisions regarding substituted service. However, no postal certificate is tendered in the evidence.

e)

That contents of plaint, oral evidence and documentary evidence prima facie do not create any cause for damages.

f)

That even the petitioners were condemned unheard, however, there was no reason and material available on the file to decree the suit.

g)

That the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree (under order 9, rule 13) was filed within limitation, but the petitioners were again condemned unheard and the same was dismissed for non-prosecution.

h)

That the order for dismissal of application under order 9, rule 13 was premature, because the same was not fixed for hearing. On that day, the learned court had fixed the case for arguments on application for the interim relief.

i)

That after submission of reply of application under 9, rule 13 normally issued are framed and such applications are almost decided on merits, but no issues were framed in this case.

j)

That the learned appellate court also decided the case on technical grounds, which are always deprecated by the superior courts.

k)
That both the lower courts passed the orders against the
set principles of law and justice.
l)
That both the lower courts ignored the principles for the
decision of the cases on merits and not on technicalities.

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->