| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2016 SLG 2683 2016 SLD 2683 2016 PCRLJ 366 |
Sindh High Court
Criminal Revision Application No. 118 of 2014, decided on 29th January, 2015. Date of hearing: 8th December, 2014.
SHAHNAWAZ TARIQ, JUSTICE
Muhammad Riaz Abbasi for Applicant. Muhammad Qadir Khan for
Respondent No. 2. Ali Hyder Saleem, A.P.G. for the State.
Criminal Revision Application No. 118 of 2014, decided on 29th January, 2015. Date of hearing: 8th December, 2014.
SHAHNAWAZ TARIQ, JUSTICE
Muhammad Riaz Abbasi for Applicant. Muhammad Qadir Khan for
Respondent No. 2. Ali Hyder Saleem, A.P.G. for the State.
GUL MUHAMMAD - --Applicant
VS
THE STATE AND ANOTHER - --Respondent
Law:
Section:
(a) Illegal Dispossession Act (XI of 2005) --------- ----------Ss. 3, 4, 5 & 7 --------- Dispossession from property --------- Complaint --------- APPLICANT had impugned order of the Trial Court, whereby he was ordered to deliver the possession of subject property to complainant/respondent --------- Complainant had claimed ownership over subject property on the strength of sub-power-of-attorney executed by the attorney of original allottee of the property --------- APPLICANT/alleged dispossessor, was in possession of the subject property, who had let out the same to the tenants for many years --------- Complainant was never in possession of the property, after execution of alleged power-of-attorney in his favour and had not disclosed the specific date and time of his alleged dispossession by the applicant from the subject property --------- Complainant had failed to produce the title documents of the property in his name, but had tried to build the premise of his case on the mere strength of alleged power-of-attorney --------- Charge against the applicant had not been framed which was a mandatory condition to pass any interim order under S.7(1) of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 --------- Trial Court, had neither considered the question of title of the complainant over the property in dispute, nor afforded an opportunity to the applicant to clarify the allegations levelled by the complainant by producing oral as well as documentary evidence in his defence --------- Impugned order was not in consonance with the provisions of S.7(1) of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 --------- For appropriate conclusion of the controversy, recording of evidence of both the parties, was essential, but same had not been done in the case --------- Impugned order passed by the Trial Court before framing the charge against applicant and recording evidence of the parties, was purely at the premature stage, which was not sustainable under the law --------- Authorities had not delivered the possession of subject property to original allottee, the attorney, the sub-attorney and special attorney --------- Complainant, in circumstances, had failed to prove his claim in respect of…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492