| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1974 SLG 3061 = 1974 SLD 3061 = 1974 PCRLJ 460 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 519/Q of 1973, heard on 5th March 1974.
Presented By: Zaki-ud- din Pal, J
Shah Muhammad v. Haq Nawaz and another P L D 1970 S C 470 and Imam Dad Khan v. Syed Muhammad Hyas 1971 S C M R 581 rel. Muhammad Hafeez and M. A. Aziz for Petitioners. Bashir Zafar for'
Respondent No. 1. Nemo for the State.
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 519/Q of 1973, heard on 5th March 1974.
Presented By: Zaki-ud- din Pal, J
Shah Muhammad v. Haq Nawaz and another P L D 1970 S C 470 and Imam Dad Khan v. Syed Muhammad Hyas 1971 S C M R 581 rel. Muhammad Hafeez and M. A. Aziz for Petitioners. Bashir Zafar for'
Respondent No. 1. Nemo for the State.
Malik MUHAMMAD SALIM AND ANOTHER-Petitioners
VERSUS
Malik MIRAJ DIN AND ANOTHER--Respondents
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 145
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) S. 145-Dispute on possession of immovable property Property already subject-matter of an order of civil Court regulating its possession during pendency of suit--Jurisdiction of criminal Court ousted to deal with same under S. 145--Action under S. 107/151. Cr. P. C. to prevent breach of peace, however, possible--Order of attachment by Magistrate, nonetheless; not permissible. If a property is already subject-matter of an order of civil Court regulating its possession during the pendency of suit then the criminal Court will not have jurisdiction to deal with the same. If a civil Court has passed an order regulating the possession of a property then the same would fall outside the jurisdiction of a Magistrate under section 145, Cr. P. C. Action, however, may be taken under sections 10'7 and 151, Cr. P. C. to prevent breach of peace bit no order for attachment of the property can be passed. Date of hearing: 5th March 1974. JUDGMENT This dispute relates to Ambassador Hotel, Jinnah Road, Murree, 'This property was initially transferred to respondent No. 1, Malik Mehraj Din who according to the petitioners later on surrendered his rights therein in their favour through an agreement of association which was allegedly approved by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner by his order dated 18-9-1971. On the basis of the said agreement of association P. T. O. was issued in favour of the petitioners on the same date. According to the petitioners they have been in occupation of the premises in question since thereafter. According to the petitioners the hotel in question was leased out by them to Haji Safdar etc. on 8-8-1973 through an agreement of the same date, photostat copy of which has been placed on record. The lease was…