1997 PLP 2811 (MLD)

‑‑‑‑S. 115 & O.XXXIX, Rr.1, 2‑‑‑Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑ Plaintiff/petitioner in his suit for declaration and injunction, had sought interim injunction to the effect that defendants/respondents be restrained from interfering with petitioner's right of holding prayers and 'Bhandara'‑‑‑Application for grant of interim injunction was concurrently dismissed by Trial Court and Appellate Court below‑‑‑Prior to filing suit for declaration and injunction in which interim injunction was sought, proceedings under S.145, Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 were taken by Sub‑Divisional Magistrate who finding likelihood of breach of peace over holding of prayers by different sects, had ordered to seal disputed "Darbar Hall" where prayers were being held and that order of S.D.M. was upheld up to the High Court‑‑‑Concurrent orders of Courts below refusing to grant interim injunction, could not be interfered with by High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. S.A. Ghaffar for Applicant. Sardar Muhammad Ishaque for Respondent. This revision application has been filed challenging the order passed by the I‑Additional District Judge, Karachi South, in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 19 of 1994, maintaining the orders passed earlier in Civil Suit No.76 of 1994, by the IV‑Senior Civil Judge, Karachi South. The facts relevant for the purposes of this revision application are that the dispute is with regard to possession and rights to offer prayers according to their own sect between the two sects, one known as 'Nanik Panthi' which is in fact from the Hindus religion, while the other sect pertains to the Sikh religion. The first sect had brought this suit for declaration and injunction on tile ground that they are managing, maintaining and holding prayers at Shree Guru Nanik Darbar Sahib, Aaram Bagh, Karachi and that the respondents who belong to the second sect, are interfering with their such rights. The trial Court had refused to grant interim injunction prayed for by the present applicant to the effect that the respondents be restrained from interfering with the applicants' rights of holding prayers and Bhandara. An appeal was filed from the said order, which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, therefore, this revision application.

3. I have heard the counsel for the applicant and Mr. Sardar Muhammad Ishaque, who is appearing on pre‑admission notice for the respondents. It may be observed that prior to filing of this suit, proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. were taken by the learned S.D.M. of the area and finding likelihood of breach of peace over holding of prayers, he had ordered to seal the Darbar Hall, where the prayers were being held. Said orders of the S.D.M. were challenged in revision, being Criminal Revision No.32 of 1993 and the learned I‑Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi South, dismissed the same and observed that it would not be proper to continue the seal for a long time and, therefore, direction was given to the S.D.M. to dispose of the matter within a period of 20 days. However, the matter was taken up before this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.410 of 1994, which was also dismissed and it was directed by a learned Single Judge of this Court (Mr. Justice Mukhtar Ahmed Junejo) as his Lordship then was, that it would be proper to continue the property under seal. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that only the Hindu families are residing within the compound of the Darbar and not a single member of Sikh community lives there and, therefore, it would be appropriate that the injunction as prayed for is granted. It may be observed that admittedly the Darbar is under seal which order has been maintained by this Court in a criminal miscellaneous application. It is also an admitted position that the order of the sealing of the said property was passed by the S.D.M. before filing of this suit. In these circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the concurrent orders passed by the two Courts below. It may, however, be observed that this would be subject to the final adjudication in the matter under section 145, Cr.P.C. In view of the above discussion, this revision application has no merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine with no order as to costs alongwith miscellaneous application. H. B. T./S‑1140/K Revision dismissed.