1984 PLP 804 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD HAMEED‑Petitioner Versus KHUSHI MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
| Citation | 1984 PLP 804 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Haleem, Actg. C. J. and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HAMEED‑Petitioner Versus KHUSHI MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of ‑Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 804 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of ‑Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 804 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Haleem, Actg. C. J. and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 804 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD HAMEED‑Petitioner Versus KHUSHI MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Kh. M. Yusuf Sarraf, Advocate Supreme Court and K. E. Bhatti; Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Imtiaz M. Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1.
- Date of hearing : 23rd October, 1983.
- M. Inamul Haq, Advocate‑ Supreme Court for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, 16th May, 1983 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous 494/Q 1978). ‑‑ Art. 185(3)‑ Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 145 & 561‑A‑Dispute over possession of landed property‑Petitioner having purchased disputed land conferred proprietary rights therein‑Civil suit by another person, against petitioner for possession of disputed land through pre‑emption ‑ Civil Judge, during pendency of suit, passing interim order restraining defendant from making any construction on disputed land ‑ Respondent later on filing application under S. 145, Cr. P. C. whereupon Magistrate attaching property and stopping parties from interfering therein ‑ Application of petitioner under S. 561‑A, Cr. P. C. for quashing of proceedings under S. 145, Cr. P. C dismissed by High Court‑Neither any infirmity in order of High Court pointed out nor proceedings under S. 145, Cr. P. C. shown to be not competent‑Leave to appeal refused. M. Inamul Haq, Advocate‑ Supreme Court for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.‑By this petition leave is sought to appeal against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 16‑5‑1983 whereby petition filed under section 561‑A, Cr. P. C. for quashment of proceedings under section 145, Cr. P. C. was dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that a suit for possession through pre‑emption was filed prior to the institution of an application under section 145, Cr. P. C. and therefore, recourse to a Criminal Court under section 145, Cr. P. C. was incompetent and the impugned order is without legal justification; that the order of attachment was passed by the Criminal Court, subsequent to the order of Civil Judge sought by the respondent, was in itself an admission that the land was to possession of the petitioner ; that proceedings under section 145, Cr. P. C. are founded on the principle of maintaining peace and order in case of imminent danger of breach of peace.
3. According to the facts mentioned in the petition the petitioner purchased Mauroosi rights in an area measuring 90 Kanals and 9 Marlas in Mauza Moori Dakbli, lrriani, Tehsil Murree from one Mahboob Hussain vide Mutation No. 870 dated 11‑8‑1972. On 25‑5‑1971, the petitioner, according to him, deposited the amount of Malikana as required by section 114 of the Punjab Tenancy Act and as a result thereof he was conferred with the proprietary rights in the said land. On 10.8‑1973 one Bari Sher brought a civil suit against the petitioner for possession of the land in dispute, through pre‑emption. This suit was dismissed on 8‑1‑1976 but earlier, during the pendency of this. suit, the learned Civil Judge had passed an interim order to the effect that the defendants in the suit were restrained from making any construction. Later on respondent filed an application under section 145, Cr. P. C. in respect of the land in question in the Court of the Resident Magistrate who vide order dated 28‑8‑1973 attached the property and stopped the parties from interfering ire he said property.
4. The learned counsel now appearing before us could not point out any infirmity in the order of the learned High Court Judge, nor he could show that proceedings under section 145, Cr. P. C. were not competent. Hence, we find no merit in this petition which is, accordingly, dismissed. S. Q. Petition dismissed.