Case Details

Citation(s)
2007 SLG 3077 2007 SLD 3077 2007 PLJ 120
Lahore High Court
W.P. No. 2918 of 2006, decided on 12.6.2006.
MUHAMMAD, JEHANGIR ARSHAD, J.
Mr. Muhammad Arif Alvi, Advocate for Petitioner.

ZAFAR IQBAL

VS

ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, MIAN CHANNU and 6 others--Respondents

Law:

Section:

Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 (XI of 2005)- ---S. 3--Criminal Procedure Code, (V of 1898), Ss. 249-A & 265-K-Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199--Power to acquit--Held: On such application the Additional Sessions Judge was under legal obligation to decide before proceedings in the matter on merits--Even otherwise, if legislature did not think it proper to provide a remedy of appeal or revision against an interim order, it was not proper to entertain the same in writ jurisdiction as the same would amount to circumventing the very intention of the legislature--Petitioner never appeared before trial Court or raised such an application for acquittal--Petition dismissed. Order The petitioner who is respondent before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Mian Channu in a petition filed by Muhammad Sardar Respondent No. 2 herein in terms of Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, is aggrieved of the very assumption of the jurisdiction by the said learned Addl. Sessions Judge on the ground that from the contents of the application moved by the respondent no case for assumption of jurisdiction by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge is made out. It is argued by the learned counsel that admittedly a civil suit titled Muhammad Sardar Vs. Haw Nawaz etc. regarding the property in dispute is pending before the learned Civil Court at Khanewal for specific performance of agreement to sell filed by Respondent No. 2 and thus during the pendency of the said suit the learned Addl. Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction even to entertain the application filed by the respondent and especially when the learned Civil Court had issued order regarding maintenance of status quo. It is further argued that there is chain of judgments of the Hon'able Supreme Court that the possession is to be regulated by the Civil Court and even through an interim order the criminal Court had no jurisdiction to entertain any proceeding with regard to the same. It is further submitted that the complainant-respondent has already moved an application complaining disregard of the status quo by the respondent. In support of his contention the learned counsel has relied on Mehr Muhammad Sarwar and others Vs.…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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