- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Appellants filed a revision petition under article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order passed in execution of a decree. That order was dated 5-4-90. It was pointed out by the order side that appellant did not mention about a subsequent order dated 17- 4-90 by which the earlier order dated 5-4-90 was modified. Learned single Judge took serious note of non-production of the order dated 17-4-90 and termed it as suppression of a very material fact and it was on that ground that the writ petition was dismissed and not on merits.
(3.) We directed the appellant to produce before us the order dated 17-4-90 to verify how far that order would have modified the earlier order dated 5-4-90. We hereby extract the order dated 17-4-90. "By this application, the defendant Nos. 2, 10 to 13, 19a, 19b, 19c, 21a and 21b have requested to modify the order dt. 22-3-1988 below exh. 85. The plaintiff has objection for partition of the suit property, provided his 0. 15 p. share, which is already given to him in S. No. 806/2a and 958/2 is excluded. Therefore, s. No. 806/2b which is already given to defendant No. 18 Mr. Kazi mohijuddin and other i. e. 18b and 18c become liable for re partition between the sharers who are entitled, as per the order below exhibit one and dt. 5-4- 1990. Hence the order dt. 22-3-1988 below exhibit 85 stands modified as above. The precept be sent to the Collector for partition of the property exclusing S. No. 806/2a and 958/2. ";