Order Sheet

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,

BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Revision No. S – 55 of 2019

Date Order with Signature of Hon’ble Judge

1. For hearing of main case

2. For hearing of MA No.2977/2019

02.09.2021

Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Jatoi, Additional PG for the State

Mr. Shabbir Ali Bozdar Advocate for private respondents

>>>>>>>>..<<<<<<<

The instant Criminal Revision Application was presented in the office on 12.06.2019, same was fixed in the Court on 26.08.2019, when notices were issued to respondents and learned DPG. On 24.08.2020 applicant and his counsel called absent. Again on 21.09.2020 counsel for applicant was present, but private respondents engaged their counsel, who filed vakalatnama and sought time. Thereafter on 26.11.2020 Mr. Hussain Farooq Jatoi Advocate appeared and filed vakalatnama on behalf of applicant. On 04.01.2021 the applicant was present in person and sought time, whereas, on 08.02.2021 brief was held on behalf of counsel for the applicant. On 01.03.2021 at the request of counsel for private respondents the matter was adjourned. On 29.03.2021 and 19.04.2021 the applicant was present and sought time. Thereafter on the last two dates of hearing i.e. 25.06.2021 and 16.08.2021 brief was held on behalf of counsel for the applicant. Today the applicant and his counsel are called absent without any intimation.

2. Through instant criminal revision application, the applicant has impugned the order dated 15.05.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moro, whereby the direct complaint filed by the applicant was dismissed.

3. Learned counsel appearing for private respondents submits that there is civil litigation pending adjudication between the parties before the competent court of law and the applicant in order to convert the civil litigation into criminal, filed the direct complaint with malafide intentions and ulterior motives.

4. Learned Additional PG for the State also supported the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the instant criminal revision application.

5. After going through the material available on record, it would be conducive to reproduce the relevant portion of the impugned order, as under;-

“After hearing of the learned counsel and made over the attention on reports of Mukhtiarkar and SHO there appears that no doubt complainant’s mother had purchased the property in question from one Ghulam Sarwar but similarly report further shows the adverse possession the respondent were already in possession of the property in question 14/15 years and the report of Mukhtiarkar and SHO P.S Moro are on one and same line.

Indeed complainant in his ground No.07 admitted that respondent Ikram has filed civil suit against the present complainant before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Moro and the complainant have also opportunity when he has title documents over the property in question he should have also filed suit for declaration, possession against the respondent Ikram Surhio. Beside it is worth here (sic) to mention here that the complainant at any juncture not shows the date of dispossession and he only mentioned the date of registered sale deed and date of entry in revenue record but since 2013 till 2019 the plot remained abundant and not made the wall in surrounding of the plot, these all aspects leading me towards exclusive view that no case of illegal dispossession is stands made-out, however, if any question arises with the complainant he would have seek the remedy of civil and approach before the competent Court of law for redressal of his grievance.”

6. I have perused the impugned order and gone through the material available on record. The trial Court while passing the impugned order dated 15.05.2019 has committed no illegality or irregularity, hence it does not call for any interference by this Court. It is maintained accordingly. Consequently, the instant criminal revision application fails and it is dismissed.

Judge

ARBROHI