1986 PLP 1203 (MLD)

‑‑‑Ss.145 a 561‑A‑‑Quashment‑‑Civil dispute between parties pending‑ Respondents having taken possession of disputed premises‑‑Interim injunction in favour of respondents existing‑‑Case under S.448, Penal Code, registered against respondents‑‑High Court and civil Court granted injunction in favour of respondents‑‑Criminal Court, held, had no jurisdiction to dispossess or pass an order under section 145(4), Cr.P.C. in circumstances‑‑Petition for quashment having no merits was dismissed. Raja Qureshi for Applicant. Makhdoom and M.Balal A.. Khawaja for Respondents. Date of hearing: 4th May 1986. There is civil dispute between the parties and the petitioner filed a suit for, specific performance of contract in the High Court on its original jurisdiction and an interim injunction was granted by the High Court in favour of the petitioner and the recital of the order shows that the plaintiff had made a prayer that an interim order directing the defendants to deposit the cheque for encashment in the Habib Bank Limited with further direction that the amount in question shall not be withdrawn by the plaintiff till further orders. This prayer of the plaintiff was acceded to by the Court. It is stated by the learned counsel for the respondents and not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on 19‑9‑1985 an interim injunction in favour of the respondents have been passed b the Court in the same proceedings. The respondents had taken possession of the premises in dispute and, therefore, order of the civil Court wa in the field as such the criminal Court has no jurisdiction to pass an order under section 145 sealing the premises in dispute. Messrs EBC Pakistan Limited have filed a civil suit against the petitioner/applicant and in that suit an interim injunction is granted in favour of the plaintiff. The petitioner filed an application for vacating the order of status quo passed in favour of the plaintiff but that application had been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as they have forcibly taken possession of the premises in dispute a case has been registered under section 448 etc. against the respondents. This case still pending and if ultimately the respondents are convicted in that case possession can be restored by the criminal Court, but in the present case this observation is only of academic nature because in the present case as observed above the High Court as well as civil Court have granted an injunction and, therefore, the criminal Cour had no jurisdiction to dispossess or pass an order within the meaning of section 145(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as laid down i 1971 S C M R

449. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has not been made a party to the Revision Application filed by EBCO Pakistan Limited and, therefore, he was not heard by the revisional Court. Learned counsel for the respondent has stated that EBCO Pakistan Limited was not made a party by the applicant in proceedings under section 145 and, therefore, the respondents have not been impleaded in the said case.

2. I would have remanded the case on this ground but as the High Court as well as civil Court have granted the injunction which are in favour of the respondents, therefore, on this technical objection the case cannot be remanded. The applicant has the remedy by moving the High Court for vacating the order passed in favour of the respondents and it appears that recourse to the application under section 145 has been made only to get an immediate relief through the assistance of criminal Court which could not be granted in the circumstances of the case. The present petition has no force and the same is dismissed. S. A. Petition dismissed.