C.P.No.D-4725  of  2015

 

 

1.    For orders on CMA-13244/2015

2.    For Katcha Peshi

3.    For orders on CMA-13245/2015

 

 

21.12.2015

 

Mr. Abdul Naeem Advocate assisted by Mr. Faisal Naeem Advocate for petitioner.

                                    ...............

 

1.                    Granted.

2&3.               It is, inter alia, contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was in possession of property bearing CS No.C-640/3 admeasuring 413-3 square yards, situated near Forest Office, Sukkur, for the last about eight years, in his capacity as tenant, whereafter, the petitioner had entered into an agreement of sale on 03,04,2013 and made part-payment of Rs.60,00,000/- (sixty lac). However, since the respondent did not comply with the term of such sale agreement, the petitioner filed FC suit No.107/2014 before 1st Senior Civil Judge, Sukkur, for specific performance, whereas, the respondent also filed a Rent case No.04/2014 before 1st Rent Controller, Sukkur, for ejectment against the petitioner. Both cases are pending before competent Courts. Per learned counsel, during pendency of such cases, the private respondents with the connivance of police officials, have forcibly dispossessed the petitioner from such property in the night of 13.12.2015 and have illegally occupied the subject-property, whereas, the FIR of the petitioner has not been registered by the police and the petitioner has also filed an application under Section 22-A, Cr.P.C, however, no orders have been passed so far. Per learned counsel, the petitioner, admittedly, was in possession of subject-property, whereas, cases are pending in respect of possession and entitlement of the parties, therefore, petitioner cannot be evicted except in due course of law. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no other remedy available to the petitioner except this Court seeking restoration of possession. Learned counsel further submits that there is apprehension that the respondents will remove the valuable articles of the petitioner from the subject-property, hence, prays that the respondents may be restrained from removing such articles, whereas, commissioner may be appointed to inspect the subject-property and prepare the list of articles belonging to the petitioner, which may be kept in safe custody under the locks, by an officer of this Court, till disposal of instant petition. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon M. Ghani v. M. A. Mullick & brothers and 3 others, (1973 SCMR 90), Syed Mehdi Hasnain v. Muhammad Ayub and another, (1970 SCMR 434), Abdul Haq and others v. The Resident Magistrate, Uch Sharif and others, (PLD 2000 Lahore 101), Karam Dad and another v. Azad Government of the State of J&K and others (1980 CLC 1119 (AJ&K) (D.B) and an unreported order of this Court dated 17.12.1997, in CPD-1090/1997 re: Muhammad Ali v. Province of Sindh & others.

 

            Let notice be issued to the respondents as well as Additional Advocate General for 23.12.2015 when concerned SHO the respondent No.4 shall be in attendance. In the meanwhile Mr.Abdul Rahim Memon, Reader of this Court is appointed as Commissioner to inspect the site after issuance of notices to all concerned parties and if there are certain articles lying on the subject-property, which are claimed to be owned by the petitioner an inventory of such articles may be prepared. Report may be submitted.

 

            Fee of the Commissioner is fixed at Rs.10,000/- which will be paid directly to the Commissioner by the petitioner. He shall also provide conveyance to the Commissioner.

 

 

                                                                                       JUDGE

 

 

                                                            JUDGE

 

 

N.M.