2019 PLP 189 (MLD)
AMJAD ALI and 2 others — Applicants Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2019 PLP 189 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh (Larkana Bench) |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | AMJAD ALI and 2 others — Applicants Versus The STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Illegal Dispossession Act (XI of 2005) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2019 PLP 189 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Illegal Dispossession Act (XI of 2005) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2019 PLP 189 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh (Larkana Bench) bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2019 PLP 189 (MLD) (AMJAD ALI and 2 others — Applicants Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.3 & 4
Scope
Trial Court directed Mukhtiarkar to make demarcation of the property
Matter between the parties was only to the extent of demarcation of the property, Trial Court could have advised the parties to have recourse of law through civil/revenue court having jurisdiction
Order passed by Trial Court was in excess of its jurisdiction
Criminal miscellaneous application was allowed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.
The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant Crl. Misc. Application are that the applicants on conclusion of the trial in a direct complaint filed by the private respondent under the provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act, were acquitted of the charge. While acquitting them, the learned trial Court issued direction to Mukhtiarkar Larkana, to the following effect; "to make demarcation of the subject property and to submit his compliance report before him within one month".
2. The applicants being aggrieved of the above said direction against the Mukhtiarkar Larkana for demarcation of their property has impugned the same before this Court by way of instant Crl. Misc. Application.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the controversy with regard to demarcation of the property being civil in nature could only be resolved by a Civil/Revenue Court having jurisdiction. By contending so, he sought for setting aside of the above said direction of learned trial Judge, as the same according to him has been passed by learned trial Judge in excess of its jurisdiction.
4. Learned counsel for the private respondent has supported the direction, so issued by learned trial Judge against the Mukhtiarkar Larkana for demarcation of the subject property. By contending so, he sought for dismissal of the instant Crl. Misc. Application.
5. Learned A.P.G. did not support the direction for demarcation of the property by learned trial Judge.
6. I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.
7. It was a direct complaint which was pending adjudication before learned trial Court, the applicants wherein were acquitted on due trial. If the learned trial Judge was having a feeling that the issue between the parties is only to the extent of demarcation of their property, then he ought to have advised them to have recourse of law through Civil/Revenue Court having jurisdiction for doing the needful, as such was having no jurisdiction to have undertaken such exercise at his own in exercise of his jurisdiction under Criminal Procedure Code. In case of Searle IV Solution (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan 2018 SCMR 1444 (Rel. P-1458), it has been observed by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan that; " wherein this Court held that by "jurisdiction" is meant a power to hear and decide a legal controversy between the parties ..
8. In view of above, directions, so issued by learned trial Judge against Mukhtiarkar Larkana for demarcation of the subject property, having passed in excess of jurisdiction, could not be sustained and are set aside.
9. The instant Crl. Misc. Application is disposed of in above terms with advice to the parties to have recourse of law before the Civil/Revenue Court having jurisdiction for demarcation of their property, if they are advised to do so. SA/A-104/Sindh Order accordingly.