ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

C.  P.   No.S-584  of  2012

DATE OF HEARING

ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

25.7.2012.

1. For orders on office objections.

2. For Katcha Peshi.

Mr. Khadim Hussain Khoso, advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Naimatullah Bhurgri, State Counsel, alongwith PSI Raza Muhammad Sohu on behalf of SSP, Kamber-Shahdadkot, SIP Iqbal Ahmed Soomro, SHO PS Sijawal, Insp. Arbab Ali Magsi, SHO PS Shahdadkot, Shamsuddin Magsi, DSP Mirokhan, SIP Meer Muhammad Kalhoro, SHO PS Behram, SIP Mulazim Hussain Abbasi, SHO PS Mirokhan and SIP Ali Muhammad Soomro of PS B/Section, Shahdadkot.

                             ------------------------------

                   Petitoner Moharram Ali has filed this petition with following prayers :-

a) That this Honourable Court may graciously be pleased to restrain the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from his agricultural land without due course of law;

b) To direct the official respondents to provide protection to the life, liberty and property of the petitioner and save him from the high handedness of private respondent No.8;

c) To direct the respondent No.8 not to dispossess the petitioner from his inherited property with the support of official respondents without due course of law;

d) To direct the official respondents not to register any false F.I.R at the instance of respondent No.8 because he wants to dispossess the petitioner through false F.I.Rs with the collusion of official respondents.”

                   Today, the official respondents No.1 to 7 have filed their respective statement, in which they have denied the allegations leveled in the petition.  They have further stated that there is dispute over land between petitioner and respondent No.8 and both of them have lodged F.I.R against each other at P.S A/Section, Shahdadkot and P.S Behram.  The official respondents have also stated that they have never harassed the petitioner, nor they have ever tried to dispossess him from the land.  They have further stated that in case the petitioner approached them for protection, they shall provide the same in accordance with law.

                   In view of above clear statements by the official respondents it seems that the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed.  However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner still insists for calling respondent No.8 to appear in Court in person.  He is unable to satisfy that in exercise of writ jurisdiction this Court cannot pass any order against a private person.  

                   In view of above, the petition having served the purpose stands disposed of.

                                                                                             JUDGE