ORDER   SHEET

IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  SINDH, CIRCUIT  COURT,  LARKANA

Crl. Revision Appln.No.S-41 of 2022.

_________________________________________________________________

DATE                                       ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

_________________________________________________________________

01. For orders on office objection “A”.

02. For hearing of main case.

07.04.2023

                        Mr. Ghulam Ali Abbasi, Advocate for applicant.

                        Mr. Imtiaz Ali Mugheri, Advocate for  private respondent.

                        Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Addl.P.G for the State.

                        =  *  = * = * = * = * =

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J. The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant Crl.Revision application are that the applicant filed a complaint against the private respondent for his prosecution under Section 3/4 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 for having dispossessed him from his landed property; it was dismissed by learned 4^th Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, vide order dated 27.05.2022, which the applicant has impugned before this Court by preferring the instant Crl.Revision Application.

            It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that learned trial Court has dismissed the complaint of applicant on the basis of report of Mukhtiarkar concerned which was furnished without providing him a chance to participate in inquiry, therefore, the impugned order being illegal is liable to be set aside.

            Learned Addl.P.G for the State and learned counsel for the private respondent by supporting the impugned order have sought for dismissal of the instant Crl.Revision Application.

            Heard arguments and perused the record.

            As per narration made by the applicant in his complaint, the subject land was purchased by him in June 2021, there-from he was dispossessed allegedly by the private respondent in September 2021; such narration is contradicted by Mukhtiarkar concerned while furnishing his report based on inquiry by stating therein that the subject land is in physical possession of the private respondent  since nine years, there-upon he has also constructed his house and brick kiln; it cannot be disbelieved under the deception that it was furnished without participation of the applicant in inquiry; the same prima facie suggests that no dispossession of the applicant on the subject land has taken place at the hands of private respondent after its purchase by him. In these circumstances, learned trial Court was right to dismiss the complaint of applicant by way of impugned order, which is not calling for any interference by this Court by way of instant Crl.Revision Application; it is dismissed accordingly.                

     JUDGE