You are on page 1of 4


Manzoor Ahmad S/o Allah Yar, caste Ronga, R/o Mohallah

Mehmood Abad, (Police Station Mumtazabad) Multan.
1. Ch. Shafqat Ali S/o Ch. Jhanda, caste Jat, R/o Masoom Shah
Road, Multan.
2. Malik Allah Bakhsh sons of Malik Allah Ditta,
3. Malik Muhammad Bakhsh caste Bhutta, R/o outside Pak
Gate, Multan.
4. Muhammad Arif Zia, City Magistrate/Ilaqa Magistrate
(Administrative) Police Station Mumtazabad, Multan.

Revision Petition U/s-349 Cr.P.C. read

with 435 Cr.P.C. against the order dated
13.4.2001 passed by the Executive
Magistrate, P.S. Mumtazabad for the
sealing of property of petitioner while
conducting proceeding U/s 145 Cr.P.C.

To set aside the impugned order, deseal
the property and to restore the possession
to the petitioner.

Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That on 12.4.2001, S.H.O. P.S. Mumtazabad submitted a
request before the respondent No. 4 that there is a dispute of
property between the respondent No. 1 and 2 & 3. Both the
parties are declaring themselves as to be the owners of
disputed property. There is a situation of law and order. So, a
decision regarding the disputed property, after conducting the
proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C. Upon this request, the
respondent No. 4, after recording the statement of respondent
No. 1 ordered to seal the disputed property on 13.4.2001.
Copy of request along-with order and statement of respondent
No. 1 are enclosed as Annexes “A & B”.

2. That the impugned order dated 13.4.2001 is liable to be set

aside inter alia on the following: -


i) That the impugned order is against the natural justice

and law of equity.

ii) That the impugned order is against the facts and

prevailing law.

iii) That the impugned order is passed in the haste and

without proper application of judicial mind.

iv) That the provisions, intention, and essence of section

145 Cr.P.C. was not kept in mind while the impugned
order was passed.

v) That initially the application was against the petitioner

and petitioner was dislodged from the disputed
property. The household material worth Rs. 200,000/- is
still lying inside the said property. At the time of sealing
the property, there were more than 500 people present
on the spot, and it was unanimously sworn by those
people that the disputed property is in the possession
and ownership of the petitioner. This situation in the
favour of petitioner compelled the respondent No. 4 to
change the situation and by this reason, respondents No.
2 & 3 were inducted in the matter. It is pertinent to
point out that the respondents No. 1 to 3 have no
concern whatsoever with the disputed property.
vi) That during the pendency of civil litigation, respondent
No. 4 has no authority to initiate the proceedings under
section 145 Cr.P.C. So, the impugned order is
unwarranted under the law, and, the respondent No. 4
departed from the jurisdiction available to him.

vii) That section 145 Cr.P.C. does not stop any Magistrate to
proceed further with the matter after sealing the
property U/s 145 (4) Cr.P.C. from conducting an inquiry
regarding the possession of any party within a period of
last two months but no such efforts were further made
to meet with the situation, and the matter is like a
hanging sword on the head of the petitioner.

viii) That illegality also committed when respondent No. 4

ignored the provisions of section 145 (6) Cr.P.C. and the
petitioner was illegally evicted from the property.

ix) That the change of parties and exclusion of proceedings

conducted at the spot from the record transpire the bias
and partial behaviour of the respondent No. 4.

x) That the petitioner and his family is left shelter-less due

to the high handedness committed by the respondent
No. 4 to benefit respondent No. 1 illegally.

xi) That the impugned order as well as act and conduct of

the respondents caused a great miscarriage of justice to
the petitioner.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the

impugned order dated 13.4.2001 passed by the
respondent No. 4 may please be set aside declaring
illegal, unlawful, unwarranted and ultra vires to the
extent of the rights of the petitioner.

It is further prayed that till the disposal of this

petition, the property in question may please be
desealed and the possession be restored to the

Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems

fit in the given circumstances, may please be extended
to meet the ends of justice.
Humble Petitioner,
Dated: ____________
(Manzoor Ahmad)

Through: -
Ch. Shafqat Khan,
Advocate High Court,
12-Aziz Block,
District Courts, Multan.