An application for adjournment has been preferred by Mr. Mehr Khan Malik, learned AOR stating that Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada, learned Sr.ASC is on general adjournment and unable to attend this Court, to which Malik Amjad Pervaiz, learned ASC for the appellant has no objection but urged that CMA 591 of 2008 filed by appellant which has nothing with the merits of the case be heard.
Accordingly, main appeal and CMA No,5743 of 2005 are adjourned to a date in office.
2. As regards CMA No,591/08 learned counsel for the appellant emphasized that leaned Single Judge of Lahore High Court while exercising suo moto revisional jurisdiction has passed serious observations/remarks against appellant, the senior counsel of this Court in para 19 of the impugned judgment and urged for expungment of the said remarks. He contended that said observations were passed without ' notice to the appellant and are highly unwarranted and uncalled for mainly for the reason that bargain of the land in-question was initiated at the time when appellant was not even an advocate, thus the remarks that appellant being prominent lawyer of High Court and leader of legal fraternity in collusion with the then Civil Judge (K. M.
Sohail) his brother and father in law Ch. Gulab Din (Respondent No, 2) proceeded to usurp the property of mosque are baseless and unwarranted. According to him appellant is prominent, and senior lawyer of Court, had earned un-impeachable reputation which is apparent from the fact that he remained Vice President of Lahore High Court Bar Association and presently he is a member of Pakistan Bar Council. According to him, the Civil Judge namely, Mr. Badar-uz-Zaman, who decreed the suit was neither his brother nor had any relationship with him.
3. M/s Ch. Attaullah and Sh. Riazul Haq, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No, 5 on instructions stated no objection to the expungment of the observation/remarks.
4. Accordingly, while allowing CMA No, 591/08 the observations/remarks passed in para 10 of the impugned judgment against appellant/plaintiff to the extent that It is with some regret that I feel constrained to note here that as against the said position of Kazi vis-a-vis Waqf property, particularly the property of a mosque as stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the said judgment, in the present case, the plaintiff a prominent lawyer of this Court rather a leader of his fraternity, in league with another Kazi, a Civil Judge stated to be the brother of Respondent No, 1 who lent the services of his father-in-law (Respondent No, 3) proceeded to usurp the property of the mosque vesting in Allah Almighty with the blessing of the Civil Judge who decreed the suit in the face of the evidence of the ownership of the mosque produced by Respondent No, 1 himself. .
This is an act of fraud and liable to be declared as such. The learned Civil Judge has proceeded to exercise the jurisdiction not vesting in him while decreeing the suit filed by Respondent No, 1 in the said circumstances" are expunged to be treated as deleted and should not be considered as part of the impugned judgment. .