2006 PLP 702 (MLD)
FARZAND ALI and others — Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, GUJRANWALA and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 702 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | FARZAND ALI and others — Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, GUJRANWALA and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 702 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 702 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 702 (MLD) (FARZAND ALI and others — Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, GUJRANWALA and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Ghaffar Khan for Petitioners.
- Syed Muhammad Anis Sadiq and Ch. Aamir Rehman, Addl. A.-G. for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 145
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Dispute concerning immovable property
Civil Judge, in the present case, had passed a specific order protecting possession of petitioner, who claimed to be in possession of two rooms in the property by passing an injunctive order against respondents-Said order was in operation, when respondent, not a party to suit, without joining proceedings before Civil Court, invoked summary jurisdiction of Magistrate and succeeded in obtaining an order of attachment of property in violation of settled law whereby once a Civil Court was seized of a dispute with regard to possession of immovable property and had passed an interim order regarding possession with respect to such property, no criminal Court would exercise jurisdiction under S.145, Cr.P.C. or S.146, Cr.P.C.
Civil Court, being Court of ultimate jurisdiction was always vested with powers to decide all disputes of civil nature between parties and preventive proceeding before a Magistrate were always subject to decision of a Civil Court
Magistrate, prima facie, should have acted with care and circumspection on his part after coming to know that dispute was already sub judice before a Court of competent jurisdiction and should have refrained from passing a contradictory and conflicting order as he lacked jurisdiction in the given circumstances
Alternatively, best course for Magistrate was to refer dispute to Civil Court, instead of assuming jurisdiction and adding to agony of parties.
Judgment & Decree
SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.
This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 arising out of proceedings under section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 deserve to be disposed of in view of the judgment of even date in Civil Revision No.2486 of 2004 inasmuch as the law on the subject is fairly settled. In Shah Muhammad v. Haq Nawaz and another (PLD 1970 SC 470) it was held that "it becomes apparent at. once that the proceedings initiated under section 145, Cr.P.C. are subordinate to a decree or order passed by a Civil Court in respect of the property in dispute before the Magistrate". In the judgment dated 17-6-2002 in C.P.L.A. No.1806-L of 2000 it was held by their lordships "it is well-settled that once a Civil Court is seized of a dispute with regard to possession of an immovable property and has passed an interim order regulating the possession with respect to such property, no Criminal Court shall exercise jurisdiction under section 145 or section 146, Cr.P.C. Civil Court, being the Court of ultimate jurisdiction is always vested with powers to decide all disputes of civil nature between the parties and the preventive proceedings before the Magistrate are always subject to the decision by a Civil Court. In a case in hand, learned Civil Judge had passed a specific order protecting the possession of petitioner-Mst. Safia Rehmat, who claimed to be in possession of two rooms in the property by passing an injunctive order against the defendants. This order was in operation, when respondent-Mian Inamul Haq, not a party to the suit, without joining the proceedings before the Civil Court, invoked the summary jurisdiction of the Magistrate First Class and succeeded in obtaining an order of attachment of the property in violation of the settled law. Prima facie, Magistrate should have acted with care and circumspection on his part after coming to know that dispute was already sub judice before the Court of competent jurisdiction and refrained from passing a contradictory and conflicting order as he lacked jurisdiction in the given circumstances. Alternatively; best course for the Magistrate was to refer the dispute to the Civil Court, instead of assuming the jurisdiction and adding to the agony of the parties. Reference may be made to Shah Muhammad v. Haq Nawaz and another (PLD 1970 SC 470), Shah Muhammad v. State (1983 SCMR 1173) and Abdul Razzaq v. Barkat Ali (1985 SCMR 1235). In such view of the legal position obtaining in the matter, this petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs. H.B.T./F-118/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.