| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 6458 2024 SLD 6458 = 2024 YLR 1079 |
Sindh High Court, Hyderabad Bench
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. S-394 of 2023 and IInd Appeal No. S-29 of 2022, decided on 13th November, 2023.
Before Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam, J
Noor ul Haq Qureshi along with Saad Salman Ghani for Applicant (in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. S-394 of 2023). Sagar Ali Sathio for
Respondent No. 1 (in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. S-394 of 2023). Nazar Muhammad Memon Adl.P.G. for the State (in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. S-394 of 2023). Sagar Ali Sathio for Appellant (in IInd Appeal No. S-29 of 2022). Allah Bachayo Soomro, Additional Advocate General Sindh along with Farhan Ali Jatoi Mukhtiarkar Taluka Qassimabad for
Respondents Nos.1 to 7 (in IInd Appeal No. S-29 of 2022). Adeel Baig Panhwar along with Ammar Ahmed Khoso for
Respondent No.8 (in IInd Appeal No. S-29 of 2022).
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. S-394 of 2023 and IInd Appeal No. S-29 of 2022, decided on 13th November, 2023.
Before Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam, J
Noor ul Haq Qureshi along with Saad Salman Ghani for Applicant (in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. S-394 of 2023). Sagar Ali Sathio for
Respondent No. 1 (in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. S-394 of 2023). Nazar Muhammad Memon Adl.P.G. for the State (in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. S-394 of 2023). Sagar Ali Sathio for Appellant (in IInd Appeal No. S-29 of 2022). Allah Bachayo Soomro, Additional Advocate General Sindh along with Farhan Ali Jatoi Mukhtiarkar Taluka Qassimabad for
Respondents Nos.1 to 7 (in IInd Appeal No. S-29 of 2022). Adeel Baig Panhwar along with Ammar Ahmed Khoso for
Respondent No.8 (in IInd Appeal No. S-29 of 2022).
NASREEN QADRI and another---Applicant
VERSUS
MIAN BUX and others---Respondents
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 47
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S. 47--- Suit for removing encroachment--- Objection petition---Question relating to rights of claimant in attached property---Petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit against Government Officials and various persons including the objector for removing the encroachment made in the street, which was decreed, directing the officials to remove the encroachment---Appeal and civil revision thereagainst were filed but dismissed---Petitioner/plaintiff filed execution petition which was allowed---During the execution proceedings the objector moved objection petition that he had not encroached any part of the common passage/street as there was no regular street/common passage---Court framed certain issues by exercising purported jurisdiction under S. 47, C.P.C.---Validity---Mukhtiarkar Report submitted before the Tribunal and the finding given by the Tribunal had been upheld up to the Supreme Court---After exhausting all such remedies when the applicant/lady went for the implementation before the Tribunal, the Tribunal passed the impugned Order---Reason for exercising jurisdiction under S. 47 of C.P.C., was mentioned in paras. 5 & 6 of the impugned Order, that since Supreme Court had given the observation about declaration of title of the objector, thus the Tribunal took it upon itself to decide the same controversy; however, while doing so, it completely overlooked the fact that already that controversy had been decided by the Court, earlier preferred by the Objector against other persons in respect of his entitlement---Therefore, the view taken by the Tribunal with regard to invoking S. 47 of C.P.C. was erroneous and not a proper exercise of jurisdiction and was illegal---Consequently, the impugned Order was set-aside---Case was remanded to decide the application for implementation afresh.Date of hearing: 13th November, 2023.JUDGMENTMUHAMMAD FAISAL KAMAL ALAM, J.---Due to commonality, both the Caption Cases are decided by this Common Judgment.2. The Criminal Miscellaneous Application is filed against the impugned Order dated 30.05.2023, whereby certain issues have been framed by exercising purported…