ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

C.P.   No.89 of 2011.                                                                                                                                        

DATE OF HEARING

ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

 For Katcha Peshi.

25.1.2011.

                        Mr. Ghulam Qadir Tunio advocate for petitioners.

Mr. Muhammad Ali B. Dargahi advocate files power on behalf of respondent No.1.

Mr. Naimtullah Bhurgari, State Counsel along with PSI Akhtar Hussain Burdi on behalf of DIGP, Larkana and Inspector Amanullah Magsi, SPO Saddar, Larkana.

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

                        Through instant petition, the petitioner has impugned letter dated 05.5.2010 issued by DSP, Saddar, Larkana while conducting enquiry as to the antecedent of deceased  Himath Ali, who was son of the petitioner and was serving as Police Constable. It has been held  in such enquiry that respondent namely Mst. Tahmina widow of Himath Ali is entitled to receive monitory benefit of the deceased. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that such findings by the concerned DSP determining the entitlement of the parties is illegal and of no consequence, as such matters can be decided by the competent Court of law.

                        Mr. Muhammad Ali B. Dargahi advocate has field Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.1 and submitted that instant controversy is already subjudice before the competent Courts of jurisdiction i.e learned 4^th Additional District Judge, Larkana and 5^th Additional District Judge, Larkana in the form of succession proceedings and Civil Appeal.

                        To this submission learned counsel for the petitioner states that though such proceedings are pending before the competent Court, where the petitioner is also party, however, since the respondent No.4 had issued impugned letter, he will be satisfied if such letter is declared as illegal and of no legal consequence.

                        We have heard both the counsel and perused the record. It appears that the legal proceedings between both the parties are pending before the competent Court of jurisdiction to determine as to who is entitled for the estate or legal dues of the deceased namely Himath Ali. As per comments of the respondent, the impugned letter has been issued pursuant to departmental enquiry, which in our view, cannot be equated with a  judgment and decree by the competent Court  establishing right and entitlement of either party.

            Accordingly, instant petition is disposed of by consent of both the learned counsels, with directions  that both the parties may continue to seek their remedy before the competent Court, which will determine the entitlement and the claim of both the parties as per law, where-after the legal dues of the deceased namely Himath Ali, may be disbursed accordingly.

                        However, the legal dues of deceased Himath Ali may not be disbursed to either party unless proper judgment and decree from the competent Court is obtained by either party.

                        Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

Judge

                                                                                                Judge