2002 PLP A (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SHAFI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2002 PLP A (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Munir A. Sheikh, Tanvir Ahmed Khan and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHAFI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP A (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP A (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Munir A. Sheikh, Tanvir Ahmed Khan and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP A (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SHAFI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Malik Abdul Wahid, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 27th February, 2002
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 1‑11‑2001 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Writ Petition No. 13513 of 2001). Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.145‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Attachment of property‑‑‑Inquiry into last possession over the property ‑‑‑Pendency of civil suit before Civil Court‑‑‑Criminal Court attached the disputed property on the apprehension of breach of peace‑‑‑Appellate Court remanded the case to the Criminal Court for determination of the last possession over the disputed property two months prior to the institution of the proceedings under S.145, Cr.P.C.‑‑‑High Court, in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction maintained the order passed by the Appellate Court‑‑‑Contention of the petitioner was that the Appellate Court could not remand the case to the Criminal Court as the matter was pending before Civil Court‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑No order of temporary injunction had been passed in favour of the petitioner to secure his possession‑‑‑Observation of the High Court that mere pendency of civil suit regarding property in dispute would not be sufficient to oust the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court in circumstances did not suffer from any illegality‑‑ Appellate Court had rightly pointed out that the Criminal Court was concerned with the position‑ as to the possession within two months of the commencement of the proceedings under S.145, Cr.P.C. which point having not been decided by the Criminal Court the remand of the case for that purpose did not suffer from any illegality‑‑‑Supreme Court declined to interfere with the order passed by High Court‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.‑‑‑This petition is directed against the judgment dated 1‑11‑2001 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby writ petition filed by the petitioner against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge has been dismissed.
2. Respondent No. 4 initiated proceedings before the Magistrate on 26‑3‑1999 under section 145, Cr.P.C. in which an interim order was passed for attachment of the property in dispute on the ground that there was danger of breach of peace as both the parties were in contest with each other about the title and possession of the land. On the application of the petitioner, the said order was withdrawn against which revision petition filed by the respondent was accepted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge through order dated 21‑4‑2001 and the case remanded to the Magistrate to determine in the first instance as required by section 145, Cr.P.C. as to which of the two contesting parties was in possession thereof two months prior to the institution of proceedings and remained in its possession till the date of making order. This order was challenged by the petitioner before the High Court through Constitutional petition which has been dismissed through the impugned judgment dated 1‑11‑2001 against which leave is sought.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent had earlier filed a suit on 15‑3‑1999 for a decree for permanent injunction against the petitioner which was dismissed for non‑prosecution. The petitioner's father on 17‑3‑1999 filed a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale against the owner of the property which was still pending. It appears that in none of the Courts, the petitioner made any averment that in the said suit, an order of temporary injunction was passed in favour of the petitioner specifically to secure his possession. The observation of the learned Judge of the High Court that mere pendency of civil suit regarding property in dispute would not be sufficient to oust the jurisdiction of the Magistrate in these circumstances does not suffer from any illegality. It was rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that in such‑like situation, the Criminal Court was concerned with the position as to the possession within two months of the commencement of the proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. which point since had not been decided by the Magistrate, therefore, the remand of the case for the said purpose did not suffer from any illegality.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to satisfy us that the impugned order passed by the High Court is not in accordance with law.
5. For the foregoing reasons, this petition has no merits which is accordingly dismissed and leave refused. Q.M.H./M.A./M‑379/5 Petition dismissed.