ORDER SHEET

IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  SINDH, CIRCUIT  COURT,  LARKANA

Crl. Revision Appln. No.S-24 of 2014.

_________________________________________________________________

DATE                   ORDER  WITH  SIGNATURE  OF  HON’BLE  JUDGE

_________________________________________________________________

 

For hearing of main case.

06.04.2023

 

                        Mr. Ghulam Dastagir Shahani, Advocate for the applicant.

                        Mr. Imdad Ali Mashori, Advocate for private respondent.

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

 

                        =  *  = * = * = * = * =

 

 IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J;- It is the case of applicant that he purchased property bearing S.No.1753, measuring 114 yards, situated at Resham Gali Larkana from his father in year 2007; it was having two shops and one godown on its ground floor, those were on rent with different persons while one room on its first floor, it was in his personal use as residence, from such room he was dispossessed by the private respondent with the help of few unknown persons in year 2010; it was in these circumstances, he filed a direct complaint for prosecution of the private respondent for allegedly having committed an offence punishable under Section 3/4 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005; it was dismissed by learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, vide order dated 19.01.2012, it was impugned by the applicant before this Court by preferring a revision application; the matter was remanded by this Court vide order dated 25.11.2013 with direction to learned trial Court to consider the complaint filed by the applicant under Section 3/4 of Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 and to dispose of the same in accordance with law. By ordering so, the parties were left to approach the Civil Court for resolution of the dispute with regard to their ownership/title over the subject property. On remand of the matter, learned trial Court dismissed the complaint again vide order dated 26.04.2014 which is impugned by the applicant before this Court by preferring instant Crl.Revision application.

 

2.         It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is lawful owner of the subject room and he has been dispossessed there-from by the private respondent with help of unknown persons; therefore, such act on his part constitutes an offence punishable under Section 3/4 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. By contending so, he sought for setting aside of the impugned order with direction to learned trial Court to take cognizance of the offence and to proceed with the case further in accordance with law. In support of his contentions, he relied upon case of Shaikh Muhammad Naseem Vs. Mst.Fareeda Gul (2016 SCMR-193).

 

3.         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 criminal revision application by contending that the civil dispute between the parties is already pending adjudication before the Court having jurisdiction and once it was also admitted by the applicant during course of his examination in Rent Application No.06/2016 that the subject property to the extent of 67 paisa was purchased by the private respondent in the name of his father.

 

4.         Heard arguments and perused the record.

5.         The applicant and private respondent are brothers inter-se; the subject property as per the applicant has been purchased by him from his father which as per private respondent was purchased by him to the extent of 67 paisa in the name of his father and is admitted to be so even by the applicant during course of his examination in Rent Application 06/2016 (Re. Ahmed Bux Vs. Waseem Ali) pending before the Court of learned 2nd Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Larkana. A photo copy of an affidavit has also been brought on record whereby Muhammad Bux who happened to be father of the applicant and private respondent has stated that the subject property is owned by the private respondent and sale deed in favour of the applicant is having no legal value; it is attested by Counsel Counselate General of Pakistan, at Jedah. The parties have already approached the Civil Court having jurisdiction for declaration of title and cancellation of sale deed in favour of the applicant. In these circumstances, learned trial Court was right to dismiss the complaint of the applicant by way of impugned order by making a conclusion that the applicant is not able to establish that he was illegally dispossessed from the subject room by the private respondent, as alleged by him.

 

6.         The case law which is relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant is on distinguishable facts and circumstances. In that case, the forcible dispossession was alleged and proved. In the present case, the applicant and private respondent being brothers inter-se are disputed over title of the subject property and there is appearing to be no forcible dispossession of the applicant there-from.

 

 

 

7.         In view of above, it is concluded safely that no illegality is committed by learned trial Court while dismissing the complaint of the applicant which may justify this Court to make interference with the impugned order by way of instant criminal revision application, it is dismissed accordingly.

 

   JUDGE