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 “Sahafat” 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 “A, A/1, A/2 & A/3” 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 “B, B/1 and B/3” 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 “C, C/1 & C/2”.

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 “Saadat” 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.
 m) That all the impugned orders have caused a great
miscarriage of justice to the petitioners.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that order

dated 19.6.2001 passed by learned A.D.J. order dated
13.4.2001 passed by learned Civil Judge and ex-parte
decree dated 13.7.2000, may please be set aside and
petitioners may please be allowed to participate in the
proceedings of original suit.

Any other order, direction or relief, which this

Hon’ble Court deems fit, may please be granted ini the
interest of justice.

Humble Petitioners,

Dated: ___________

Through: -
Hammad Afzal Bajwa, Sheikh Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan. 28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20959 C.C. No. 20176

CERTIFICATE: -
Certified as per instructions of the client,
that this is the first revision petition on the
subject matter. No such petition has earlier
been filed before this Hon’ble Court.
Advocate

In the Lahore High Court, Bench at Bahawalpur.

 C.R. No._____________/2001

Zia Shahid etc. Vs. Rana Ikram Ullah Khan etc.

Application U/o 21 & 26, Order 43, Rule 5 & Sec-151 C.P.C.

AFFIDAVIT of: -
Zia Shahid Chief Editor Daily Khabrain, 12-Lawrence
Road, Lahore.

I, the above named deponent do hereby

solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of
the above-mentioned 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 August 2001 that the contents of this affidavit
are true & correct to the best of my knowledge
and belief.

DEPONENT

In the Lahore High Court, Bench at Bahawalpur.

 C.R. No._____________/2001

Zia Shahid etc. Vs. Rana Ikram Ullah Khan etc.

INDEX

S. No. DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS ANNEXES PAGES

1 Urgent Form
2 Revision Petition.
3 Copy of Plaint. A
4 Copy of Oral Evidence. A/1
5 Copy of Documentary Evidence. A/2
6 Copy of judgment along-with decree A/3
sheet.
7 Copies of application, reply and order B, B/1 &
sheet. B/2
8 Copies of grounds of appeal, order C, C/1 &
sheet and impugned order. C/2
9 Application U/o 21 & 26, order 43,
rule 5 & Sec-151 C.P.C.
10 Affidavit.
11 Power of Attorney.

PETITIONERS
Dated: ____________

Through: -
Hammad Afzal Bajwa, Sheikh Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan. 28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20959 C.C. No. 20176

In the Lahore High Court, Bench at Bahawalpur.

 C.R. No._____________/2001

Zia Shahid etc. Vs. Rana Ikram Ullah Khan etc.

Application U/o 21 & 26, Order 43, Rule 5 & Sec-151 C.P.C.

Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That the contents of revision petitioner shall be treated as the
integral part of this application.

2. That prima facie the applicants have a good arguable case.

3. That the applicants have been condemned unheard.

4. That both the lower courts have decided the case on

technicalities, but not on merits.

5. That it is a money decree, if not suspended the applicants shall

face irreparable loss.

6. That balance of convenience and balance of justice is in favour of

the applicants.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the

operation of impugned decree/orders may please be
suspended till the final decision of main petition.
Humble Applicants,

Dated: _________
Through: -
Hammad Afzal Bajwa, Sheikh Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan. 28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20959 C.C. No. 20176