ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl.Revision Appln.No.S-16 of 2020

DATE                    ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

01. For orders on M.A.No.1839/2020 (U/A)

02. For orders on M.A.No.1343/2020 (U/A)

03. For orders on office objection “A”.

04. For orders on M.A.No.1344/2020 (E/A)

05. For orders on M.A.No.1345/2020 (Stay)

06. For hearing of main case.

14.05.2020.

Mr.Khadim Hussain Khoso, Advocate for the applicants.

                                                -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-

Irshad Ali Shah-J: The applicants by means of instant Crl.Revision Application have impugned order dated 22.01.2020, rendered by learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdadkot, whereby he has taken cognizance of the direct complaint filed by the private respondent for prosecution of the applicants, under the provision of Section 3/4 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005.

2.                It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that title of the private respondent over the subject land is under dispute; no dispossession of the private respondent from the subject land has taken place and the direct complaint has been brought on record by learned trial Court without waiting for reports of the Mukhtiarkar, Revenue and Estate, Qamber, which were called earlier, therefore, the impugned order being illegal is liable to be set aside.

3.                 I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

4.            There is line of demarcation between inquiry and trial. In inquiry, one has to make out a case worth cognizance and such burden prima facie is light and in trial one has to prove his case beyond the shadow of doubt and such burden is heavy. In the instant matter, on inquiry the private respondent has been able to make out his case for cognizance, which has rightly been taken by learned trial Court, on the basis of material/record made available before it by the private respondent and SHO, P.S, Behram. In that situation, there was hardly need for learned trial Court to have waited for reports of Mukhtiarkar, Revenue and Estate, Qamber. If the applicants are having feeling that the title of private respondent over subject land is under dispute; no dispossession of the private respondent from the subject land has taken place and they have been involved in a false case by the private respondent, then they could prove their innocence adequately by joining the trial.

5.           No illegality is apparent, which may justify making interference with the impugned order by this Court by way of instant Crl.Revision Application, it is dismissed accordingly together with listed applications.                                  

J U D G E