ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA.

Constt: Pett: No:   463 of 2011.

Date                          Order with signature of judge.

            1.         For orders on office objection as flag A.

            2.         For Katcha Peshi.                                                  

16.03.2011.

                        Mr. Habibullah G. Ghori, advocate for the petitioner.

                        Mr. Azizul Haq Solangi, Asstt: A.G  alongwith PSI Akhtar Hussain Burdi, on behalf of DPO Larkana and DIGP Larkana, Insp.Tofique Ahmed Sadhayo, SHO P.S Hyderi, Insp.Naimatullah Jatoi, on behalf of SPO Civil Lines  Larkana.

========

                        Through instant petition, petitioner has complained   about the harassment  by police officials  at the instance of private respondents, with whom the petitioner claims a privity of contract regarding sale and purchase of some land.  

                        It has been alleged that respondents No.6 and7 are causing harassment by involving  the police officials  into  a civil dispute.

                        Notices were issued to the respondents, pursuant to which the official respondents  have filed their statements wherein all the allegations have been denied. It has been stated   that no harassment whatsoever has been caused by the police officials to the petitioner.

                        Mr. Ghulam Mohiuddin Durani, has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of private respondents No.7 and 8, who are also in attendance, the same are taken on record.  Respondents Noi.7 and 8 categorically denied the allegations and stated that no harassment whatsoever  has been caused to the petitioner.   They further stated that there is some civil dispute  pending in the  competent court of law in respect of  same land, with some other party and not with petitioners. 

                        Learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of statement of respondents, stated that  petitioner is satisfied   and will not press  the instant petition provided the official respondents are directed to provide legal protection to the petitioner and further to restrain private respondents from causing any harassment  to the petitioner.  

                        Since such undertaking has already been given by the official respondents as well as private respondents present in Court, accordingly, in view of the hereinabove facts, instant petition is disposed of.

JUDGE