2023 C L C 2098
[Balochistan (Sibi Bench)]
Before Gul Hassan Tareen, J
GHAZI KHAN ----Petitioner
Versus
MUHAMMAD YOUSAF and 2 others ----Respondents
Civil Revision Petition No.33 of 2018, decided on 30th March, 2023.
(a) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882) ---
----S.54 ---Qanun -e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.17(2)(a), 79 & 129(g) ---Registration Act
(XVI of 1908), S. 17(1)(b) ----Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42, 39 & 54---Suit for
declaration, cancellation of agreement and permanent injunction---Document (sale-
agreement), execution of ---Denial by the alleged executor ---Burden of proof ---Two marginal
witnesses, non- production of ---Sale- agreement, non - registration of ---Suit filed by the
plaintiff was dismissed by the Trial Court, which judgment was maintained by the Appellate
Court ---Claim of the petitioner / plaintiff was that he rented -out his allotted suit -shop to a
defendant (possessor) who had connived with another defendant who (later) alleged himself as vendee by preparing forged document (Patta) allegedly issued by the concerned
authority/defendant) ---Contention of the respondents /defendants was that the plaintiff
himself made application before the concerned authority (respondent) for the transfer of suit -
shop in favour of alleged vendee (respondent), on which basis suit -shop was transferred vide
document (i.e. Patta) duly issued by the concerned authority/respondent ---Validity ---Record
revealed that the (private) respondents/ defendants through their common pleadings had not denied that shop was rented out to the possessor (respondent /defendant); and they had got exhibited the said document i.e. Patta ('document -in-question') ---Burden of proof of the sale
transaction vide document -in-question and transfer of shop on the application of the
petitioner / plaintiff was on the respondent/vendee, who brought on record document -in-
question through Notary Public ---Document -in-question was though attested by two
witnesses, however, respondent/vendee produced only one marginal witness ---Document -in-
question was a sale- agreement in respect of an immoveable property (shop) which was
required to be attested by two witnesses under Art.17(2)(a) of Qanun- e-Shahadat, 1984 ('the
Order 1984'); and such document must be proved by producing its two marginal witnesses under A rt. 79 of the Order 1984--- Second marginal witness of the document -in-question was
withheld by the respondent/vendee without any legal reason---High Court could presume, under the provision of Art. 129(g) of the Order, 1984, that had the said witness been produced, he would have gone against him (respondent) ---Respondent/vendee not only failed
to prove execution of document -in-question but also failed to discharge the burden of
proving that he had in fact purchased the shop from the petitioner ---Document -in-question
was a contract of sale which, according to S. 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, did
not itself create any interest in or charge on an immoveable property unless the same was
made a registered instrument under paragraph (2) of S. 54 of the Act, 1882 read with S.17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908---High Court set -aside the decrees and judgments
passed by both the Courts below and decreed the suit filed by the petitioner / plaintiff, declaring that agreement to sell asserted by the respondent/defendants was forged one ---
Revision was allowed, in circumstances.
Mst. Rasheeda Begum and others v. Muhammad Yousaf and others 2002 SCMR 1089
ref.
(b) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882) ---
----S. 54---Qanun -e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.79---Document (sale -agreement, execution
of---Proof ---Marginal witness appearing as attorney of the party---Legality ---Record
revealed that the one marginal witness of the document -in-question appeared before the Trial
Court as attorney of the respondents ---Respondent/vendee should have examined him as his
witness ---Question was as to how the said witness could have appeared in dual capacities i.e.
as an Attorney of the respondents and as a marginal witness of the document -in-question---
Marginal witness merely testifies execution of a document by the parties thereto ; he is not deemed to become 'a party', and looses its character of a marginal witness ---Testimony of the
said witness was doubtful, questioning his impartiality and he appeared to be an interested witness, which supported the claim of the petitioner that document -in-question was indeed a
forged document ---Respondents had failed to prove the execution of document -in-question
under Art. 79 of the Qanun -e-Shahadat, 1984---High Court set -aside the decrees and
judgments passed by both the Courts below and decreed the suit filed by the petitioner /
plaintiff, declaring that agreement to sell asserted by the respondent/defendants was forged one---Revision was allowed, in circumstances.
(c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ---
----O.VI, R. 4 & O.VIII, R.2--- Evidence beyond pleadings ---Record revealed that the
respondent had not pleaded the price of the suit -property (shop) in his written statement and
tried to establish, through his two witnesses, that the petitioner had sold out the shop in exchange for a price of Rs.15,00,000/=, but said evidence to such extent was departure from his pleadings ---Evidence beyond pleadings was to be simply ignored and both the Courts
below should have over -looked the same ---High Court set -aside the decrees and judgments
passed by both the Courts below and decreed the suit filed by the petitioner / plaintiff, declaring that agreement to sell asserted by the respondent/defendants was forged one ---
Revision was allowed, in circumstances.
(d) Qanun -e-Shahadat (10 of 1984) ---
----Arts. 17(2)(a) & 79--- Document, execution of ---Proof ---Evidence of the Notary Public ---
Relevance---Evidence of a Notary Public was not relevant for proof of execution of a contract of sale/agreement as the same was not required by any law to be verified by a Notary Public.
Zafar Iqbal v. Sher Muhammad and 3 others 2003 YLR 673 ref.
(e) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ---
----O. VII, R.7 & S. 115--- Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42, 39 & 54--- Suit for
declaration, cancellation of agreement, permanent injunction ---Certain relief (possession),
not prayed for ---Revisional jurisdiction of the High Court ---Scope ---Contention of the
defendants/respondents was that the petitioner/ plaintiff had not sought possession of the
suit-shop in prayer clause of his suit ---Held, that record revealed that though the contention
of the respondent was correct, however, the same could not be made a ground for non- suiting
a party under the proviso to S. 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877---Under O. VII, R.7 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Court was competent to grant an ancillary, general or additional relief to a plaintiff, though the same was not specifically asked ---High Court at revisional
stage could grant `relief of possession of the suit -shop to the petitioner/ plaintiff in exercise
of power under O.VII, R.7 of the Civil procedure Code, 1908, subject to payment of additional court fees ---High Court, while directing the petitioner/plaintiff to pay requisite
court fee, set -aside the decrees and judgments passed by both the Courts below and decreed
the suit filed by the petitioner / plaintiff, declaring that agreement to sell asserted by the respondent/defendants was forged one ---Revision was allowed, in circumstances.
Ahmed Din v. Muhammad Shan and others PLD 1971 SC 762 ref.
(f) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)---
----S. 18 & Art. 120---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42, 39 & 54--- Suit for declaration,
cancellation of agreement, permanent injunction---Document, execution of ---Proof ---
Limitation ---Claim of the plaintiff was that he rented -out his allotted suit -shop to a defendant
(possessor) who had connived with another defendant who (later) claimed himself as vendee by preparing forged document (Patta) allegedly issued by the concerned Authority/defendant) ---Contention of the defendants/respondents was that the suit filed by
the petitioner / plaintiff was time -barred ---Validity ---Contention of the respondents
/defendants was of no legal force as in the relevant para of plaint of the petitioner / plaintiff , he averred that 03/04 months prior to institution of suit, he came to know that the respondent/defendant was trying to occupy his shop and on inspection of the record, forged document was revealed to him ---Petitioner had sought declaration of the forged- document
(which was later duly exhibited by the responde nt / defendant ) ---Article 120 of Schedule -I
of the Limitation Act, 1908 prescribed six years time limitation for instituting a suit for declaration that a document was void or fraudulent ---Trial Court without framing issue on
question of limitation, for the first time, held in the impugned judgment that the suit was barred by time ---Respondent/authority had transferred the lease of suit -shop to the
respondent at his (petitioner's) back, therefore, such transfer being void ab initio was governed by Art.120 of the Limitation Act, 1908---Limitation for declaring a document to be void started from the date of knowledge in view of section 18 of Limitation Act, 1908--- Both
the Courts below had overlooked said aspect of the case ---High Court set -aside the decrees
and judgments passed by both the Courts below and decreed the suit filed by the petitioner / plaintiff, declaring that agreement to sell asserted by the respondent/defendants was forged
one---Revision was allowed, in circumstances.
(g) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882) ---
----S. 54---Qanun -e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 79---Registration Act (XVI of 1908), S.
17(1)(b) ---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115(1)(a) & 115(1)(b) ---Suit for declaration,
cancellation of agreement and permanent injunction--- Concurrent findings of dismissal of
suit---Powers of the High Court under revisional jurisdiction--- Scope ---Document (sale -
agreement), execution of ---Denial by the alleged executor ---Burden of proof ---Two marginal
witnesses, non -production of --- Sale- agreement, non -registration of ---Rights ---Scope ---
Claim of the petitioner/ plaintiff was that he rented -out his allotted suit -shop to a defendant
(possessor) who had connived with another defendant who (later) claimed himself as vendee
by preparing forged document (Patta) allegedly issued by the concerned authority/defendant) ---Validity ---There was no absolute rule that the concurrent judgments
of the subordinates Courts could never be interfered with by the High Court ---In the present
case, the findings of the Trial Court on the issues (relating to execution of sale -agreement
between the parties) and of Appellate Court on the points of determination were illegal as the respondents / defendants had failed to prove execution of (un- registered) sale -agreement in
their favour through cogent and trustworthy evidence as required under the relevant laws, therefore, impugned judgments were outcome of error of jurisdiction and were suffered from material illegality; as such attracted the provisions of Ss.115(1)(a) & 115(1)(b) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908--- High Court set -aside the decrees and judgments passed by both the
Courts below and decreed the suit filed by the petitioner / plaintiff, declaring that agreement to sell asserted by the respondent/defendants was forged one ---Revision was allowed, in
circumstances.
Alamdar Husain v. Nazin Hussain and others 2004 SCMR 595 ref.
Anwar -ul-Haq Chaudhry for Petitioner.
Ahsan Rafiq Rana for Respondents Nos.1 and 2.
Muhammad Aslam Jamali, Assistant Advocate General for Respondent No. 3.
Date of hearing: 22nd March, 2023.
JUDGMENT
GUL HASSAN TAREEN, J. ----This civil revision petition, filed under section 115,
the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ("Code"), assails concurrent judgments and decrees dated 21 April, 2018 and 29 June, 2018 ("impugned judgments and decrees") passed respectively, by learned Sr: Civil Judge, Jaffarabad at Dera Allah Yar ("Trial Court") and learned Additional District Judge, Dera Allah Yar ("Appellate Court"); whereby civil suit instituted by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner instituted a Civil Suit No. 122/2015 for
declaration, cancellation of agreement dated 28 January, 2011 and permanent injunction
against the respondents with the averments that a shop, described in para No. 2 of the plaint, was allotted to him on 14 January, 2004 on monthly lease money of Rs. 350/ -, by the
Municipal Committee, Dera Allah Yar ('respondent No. 3'). In 2014, he rented out the shop to the respondent No. 2 in exchange for a monthly rental of Rs. 5000/ -. Three/four months,
prior to institution of the suit, he noticed that respondent No. 1 was trying to occupy the shop
whereas, the respondent No. 2 also declined to pay the monthly rent. Respondent No. 2
disclosed that the respondent No. 1 is, now, claiming ownership of the shop. When he approached respondent No. 1 and asked, to not interfere in the shop, he disclosed that he is the legal allottee of the shop. On inspection of record, petitioner came to know that the respondent No. 1, with the collusion of the respondent No. 3, got transferred the lease of shop to his name and for said purpose, he forged an agreement dated 28th January, 2011. Finally, petitioner sought declaration of ownership; declaration regarding illegal allotment of the shop in the name of the respondent No. 1; declaration that the agreement is forged and a direction to the respondent No. 2 for payment of the monthly rent.
3. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2, submitted a common contesting written statement. The
respondent No. 3 also submitted a contesting written statement. On such pleadings, following issues were framed:
"1. Whether the plaintiff is lawful allottee of the shop in question, which has allotted by the defendant No. 3 in favour of plaintiff vide order dated 14.01.2004, subsequently same has illegally allotted by the defendant No. 3 in favour of defendant No. 1?
O.P.D.
2. Whether the shop in question has duly sold out by the plaintiff to the defendant No. 1
on 28.01.2011? O.P.D.
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree as prayed for?
4. Relief?
4. The petitioner, besides, his own statement, produced and examined two witnesses. In
rebuttal, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 examined two oral witnesses as DW -1 and DW -2, a
Notary Public as DW- 3, who produced the record of agreement as Ex: D/1, representative of
the respondent No. 3 as DW -4, who tendered in evidence applications and Order No. 47
dated 02 July, 2011 as Ex: D/2, Ex: D/3 and Ex: D/4, respectively. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 through attorney made statement. The representative of respondent No.3 also appeared on oath.
5. On conclusion of trial, the Trial Court vide impugned judgment and decree dismissed
the suit. The dismissal judgment was affirmed on appeal by the Appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree.
6. Mr. Anwar -ul-Haq Chaudhary, Advocate, counsel for the petitioner argued that the
burden of proof of sale of the shop by the petitioner was upon the respondent No. 1, being beneficiary of the sale transaction whereas, the sale agreement (Ex: D/1) does not state the
price and mode of payment of price. He argued that the respondent No. 1 failed to prove
execution of Ex: D/1, by producing two marginal witnesses thereof; whereas, one marginal witness appeared and deposed as attorney on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2. He also argued that the evidence of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 states that petitioner sold out the shop to the respondent No. 1 in exchange for Rs. 15,00,000/ - which is departure from their
pleading. Finally, he requested for, setting aside of the impugned judgments and, decretal of
the suit.
7. Mr. Ahsan Rafiq Rana, Advocate, counsel for the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 argued
that petitioner had not sought relief of possession of the shop in prayer clause of his suit;
therefore, suit was not maintainable under proviso to section 42, the Specific Relief Act, 1877 ("S.R.A"). He argued that suit was barred by time because suit was instituted on 02 November, 2015, whereas Ex: D/1 was executed on 28 January, 2011 and referred to Article 91, Schedule -I, the Limitation Act, 1908 ("Act"). He argued that execution of Ex: D/1 was
proved through the evidence of Notary Public and one marginal witness Mazar Khan. He finally argued that the petitioner has also failed to challenge an application purportedly made by him to the respondent No. 3 for transfer of the shop in the name of the respondent No. 1 and there is limited scope of a civil revision petition against concurrent findings of the Courts below.
8. Mr. Muhammad Aslam Jamali, Assistant Advocate General relied on pleading of the
respondent No. 3 submitted before the Trial Court.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the record.
10. At the trial, the petitioner and respondents were not at issue on the question of
allotment of the shop in favour of the petitioner by the respondent No. 3 and his possession thereupon. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 through their common pleading have not denied that shop was rented out to the respondent No. 2. They claimed that vide Ex: D/1, the respondent No. 1 purchased the shop from the petitioner and on 26 January, 2011, the petitioner made an application to the respondent No.3 for transfer of the shop in the name of the respondent No. 1. On such application, the Patta (Ex: D/4) was transferred, by the respondent No.3, in his name. Therefore, the burden of proof of the sale transaction vide Ex: D/1 and transfer of shop on the application of the petitioner, was upon the respondent No.1.
11. The respondent No. 1 brought on record the Ex: D/1 through Notary Public and
produced one marginal witness. The perusal of Ex: D/1 reveals that it was attested by two witnesses Mazar Khan and Khalid Hussain. The petitioner pleaded that the Ex: D/1 is a forged instrument; therefore, the respondent No. 1 should have proved execution thereof through production and examination of its said two marginal witnesses. Under Article 79, the Qanun- e-Shahadat Order -10, 1984 ("Q.S.O"), any document required by law to be attested
by two witnesses, must be proved by producing the two marginal witnesses of such document. The Ex: D/1 is a sale agreement in respect of an immovable property i.e. shop, which is required by the law of Article 17(2)(a), the Q.S.O, to be attested by two witnesses. The respondent No. 1 failed to prove execution of Ex: D/1 under Article 79, Q.S.O. Therefore, he has failed to discharge the burden of issues; that, he had, in fact purchased the
shop from the petitioner. Reliance is placed on the case reported as Mst. Rasheeda Begum
and others v. Muhammad Yousaf and others, (2002 SCMR 1089).
12. The one marginal witness of Ex: D/1 namely Mazar Khan appeared before the Trial
Court as attorney of respondents Nos. 1 and 2. The respondent No. 1 should have examined such attesting witness as his witness. How such witness appeared on oath as attorney of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2. How could have he appeared in dual capacities; i.e., as marginal witness of Ex: D/1 and as attorney of respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Marginal witness merely testifies execution of a document by parties thereto. He is not deemed to become 'a party' and loses its character, of a marginal witness. The testimony of said Mazar Khan is doubtful and he appears to be an interested witness. By appearing as attorney, he has questioned his impartiality. This suggests and supports the claim of the petitioner that, indeed, Ex: D/1 is a forged document. In any case, the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have failed to prove execution of Ex: D/1 under Article 79, the Q.S.O.
13. The Ex: D/1 was also attested by a second marginal witness Khalid Hussain. The
respondent No. 1 withheld such witness without any legal reason. This Court may presume that had the said witness been produced, he would have gone against him. At this juncture, I may refer to Article 129(g) the Q.S.O which dictates that, 'evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withheld it.' Therefore, the respondent No. 1 not only failed to prove execution of the Ex: D/1 rather withheld the second marginal witness which infers that Ex: D/1 is a forged instrument.
14. The respondent No. 1 has not mentioned in his written statement the price of the shop
against which he allegedly had purchased the shop. The section 54, the Transfer of Property
Act, 1882 ("Act, 1882") defines sale which reads:
"54. "Sale defined".---"Sale" is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part paid and part promised.
Sale how made. -- Such transfer, in the case of tangible immovable property of the
value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument.
In the case of tangible immovable property, of a value less than one hundred rupees, such transfer may be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property.
Delivery of tangible immovable property takes place when the seller places the buyer, or such person as he directs in possession of the property.
Contract for sale. ---A contract for the sale of immovable property is a contract that a
sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties.
It does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property
According to section 54, Act, 1882 there are four components of a legal sale:
(i) the parties;
(ii) the subject matter;
(iii) the price; and
(iv) the conveyance.
Parties means vendor and vendee and both should be legally competent to sale and to
purchase the subject of a sale. Subject matter means tangible and or intangible immovable
property. Price means the money (only) against which sale is effected or consideration of sale and conveyance means a registered sale deed.
The respondent No. 1 has not pleaded the price of the shop in his written statement.
He through his evidence, DW -1 and DW -2, tried to establish that the petitioner sold out the
shop in exchange for a price of Rs.1,500,000/ -. But since evidence to such extent is departure
from his pleading; as such, the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court should have overlooked it. Evidence beyond pleading is to be simply ignored. Apart from pleading, the Ex: D/1 is also silent about price and payment thereof to the petitioner. The Ex: D/1 is a contract of sale which according to section 54, the Act, 1882 does not itself, create any interest in or charge on an immovable property unless it is made by a registered instrument under paragraph (2) of section 54, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 read with section 17 (1)(b), the Registration Act, 1908. The respondent No. 1 could not have transferred the ownership of lease hold rights of the shop on the basis of unregistered instrument, Ex: D/1.
15. The evidence of Notary Public does not fall within the definition of attesting witness.
The Notary Public appeared as DW- 3 and during his cross -examination stated as under:
"1. I do not remember that on 28.01.2011, apart from parties, who had come there.
2. I cannot say that, witnesses had put signatures on the Ex: D/1 in my presence.
3. It is correct that I cannot say that who had purchased stamp paper of Ex: D/1. vol: stated that it can be told by a stamp vendor after inspection of record.
6. It is correct that the tendered register does not bear the signatures of both parties. vol: stated that, only a Notary Public signs it."
The DW- 3 has not supported the case of the respondent No.1. Even otherwise, the
evidence of a Notary Public is not relevant for proof of execution of a contract of sale/ agreement as the same is not required by any law to be verified by a Notary Public. Reliance is placed on the case reported as Zafar Iqbal v. Sher Muhammad and 3 others (2003 YLR 673).
16. The respondent No. 1 could not substantiate that the petitioner made an application
(Ex: D/2) to the respondent No. 3 for transfer of the shop in the name of the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 failed to prove that the petitioner indeed appeared before the then concerned Authority of the respondent No. 3 and made Ex: D/2. Respondent No. 1 should
have produced the then concerned officer before whom, Ex: D/2 was allegedly made.
According to Article 78, the Q.S.O, where a document is alleged to be signed by any person, the signature as is alleged to be in that person's hand writing must be proved to be in his hand writing. Since, respondent No. 1 has failed to prove execution of Ex: D/1; therefore, Ex: D/2 does not support his case.
17. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2's counsel is however, correct in saying that the petitioner
has not sought possession of the shop in prayer clause of his suit. However, same cannot be made a ground for non -suiting a party under the proviso to section 42, the S.R.A. Under
Order VII, Rule 7, the Code, a Court is competent to grant an ancillary, general or additional relief to a plaintiff, though the same was not specifically asked. This Court at revisional stage can grant relief of possession of the shop to the petitioner in exercise of power under Order VII, Rule 7, the Code, subject to payment of additional court fees. Reliance is placed on the case reported as Ahmed Din v. Muhammad Shan and others (PLD 1971 SC 762). The petitioner has annexed court fees stamp of Rs.15000/ - with the petition, however, he has to
make good deficiency of court fees before the Trial Court as well as of the Appellate Court i.e. Rs. 15,000/ - + 15,000/ -.
18. So far as contention of respondents Nos. 1 and 2's counsel, that the suit was barred by
time, the same is without legal force. In the para No. 4 of his plaint, the petitioner averred that 03/04 months prior to institution of suit, he came to know that respondent No. 1 was trying to occupy the shop and when he inspected the record, he came to know about Ex: D/1. The petitioner has sought declaration that the Ex: D/1 is a bogus and forged instrument. Article 120, Schedule -I, the Act, prescribes six years time limitation for instituting suit,
declaration that, a document is void or fraudulent. Though the Trial Court had not framed an
issue on the question of limitation, however, for the first time, in the impugned judgment held that the suit is barred by limitation. The respondent No. 3 had transferred the lease of the shop to the respondent No. 1 at his back, therefore, such transfer being void ab initio is governed by Article 120, the Act. Limitation for declaring a document to be void starts from the date of knowledge in view of section 18, the Act. The petitioner claimed that he came to know about the existence of Ex: D/1, 3/4 months prior to institution of the suit. The Courts below overlooked such aspect of the case.
19. For what has been discussed and referred above, the impugned judgments are
outcome of error of jurisdiction and suffer from material illegality; as such, attract the provisions of section 115(1)(a) and (b), the Code. The findings of the Trial Court on the issue Nos. 1 and 2 and of the Appellate Court, on the points for determination are therefore, illegal. There is no absolute rule that the concurrent judgments of the subordinate courts could never be interfered with by the High Court. Reliance is placed on the case reported as Alamdar Hussain v. Nazir Hussain and others (2004 SCMR 595).
20. In the light of afore -discussion, the civil revision petition is allowed; impugned
judgments and decrees are set -aside. The Civil Suit No. 122/2015 instituted by the petitioner
is decreed and it is declared that the petitioner is the lawful lessee of shop No. 10, vide allotment order dated 14 January, 2004 and possession of the respondent No. 1 upon the shop is illegal; it is declared that the agreement dated 26th January, 2011 is forged and allotment
of the shop in the name of respondent No. 1 is void ab initio; respondent No. 3 is directed to
restore the lease of the shop in the name of the petitioner and respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to handover possession thereof to the petitioner without any encumbrances. Petitioner is directed to pay court fees of Rs.15000/ - + 15000/ - within a period of sixty days,
if he fails, he shall be liable to have his suit dismissed.
Decree sheet be drawn under Order XX, Rule 12, the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
MQ/100/Bal. Revision petition allowed.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.