IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH CIRCUIT COURT HYDERABAD
Present:
Mr. Justice Aziz-ur-Rehman.
Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam.
C.P.No.D- 416 of 2014
Muhammad Siddique s/o Khalid Memon
V/S
IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad & others
Ø Mr. Mashooque Ali Bhurgri, Advocate for Petitioner.
Ø Mr. Allah Bachayo Soomro, Additional A.G.
Ø Nemo for the private Respondents.
Date of hearing: 17.10.2018.
Date of judgment: 01.11.2018.
JUDGMENT
AZIZ-UR-REHMAN, J: By means of this Constitutional Petition Under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner herein viz. Muhammad Siddique `inter-alia` is seeking the setting aside of the impugned order dated 11.09.2013 [Annexure `F to the MoP]. The `impugned order` as per Petitioner`s stand besides being against the principle of law of natural justice is `illegal`. The prayers sought by the Petitioner in the Memo of Petition [In short MoP], are as follows:-
a. To declare that the dispossession of the petitioner via set aside order 11.09.2013 and ineffective order is illegal.
b. To direct the respondent No.4 & 5 to restore the possession of the petitioner. [Underlining is ours]
c. To refrain respondent No.6 from issuing any illegal and unlawful mutation until the disposition of instant petition.
d. To award cost of petition.
e. To grant any other relief that this Honourable Court deems fit and proper and in the interest of justice.
2. The precise relevant facts leading to the filing of the instant Petition are that; the Petitioner herein, is holding a `Registered Sale Deed` dated 23.09.2011 [Annexure `A` to the MoP], in his favour which as asserted has been duly executed between one Ghulam Raza Abro s/o Ghulam Ali Abro and Muhammad Siuddique Memon [Petitioner herein]. The Petitioner, as such, is a lawful owner of Bungalow No.170/100 admeasuring 100 sq.yards situated at Street No.06, Abdullah Town, Qasimabad, Hyderabad [hereinafter referred to subject Bungalow]. Per Petitioner`s version, he was also in `lawful possession` of the said Bungalow prior to his dis-possession i.e. pursuant to and in compliance with order dated 16.08.2011 [Annexure `B` to the MoP], passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in CRIMINAL I.D. COMPLAINT NO.37 OF 2010 [Mst. Suriya Kausar Qureshi v. Dr. Mumtaz Chandio & 2 others]. The Petitioner, it is needless to say, at the time of passing Order dated 16.08.2011, was not a Respondent and/or an accused in the said Criminal Illegal Dispossession Complaint bearing No.37 of 2010 [In short Cr. I.D. Complaint].
3. Per record, Respondent lady No.2 herein, filed a Criminal Complaint No.37 of 2010 Under Section 3 (2), 5 & 7 of Illegal Dispossession Act, of 2005 [In short Cr. I.D. Complaint], before the Court of learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, only against three [3] Respondents/Accused namely [i] Dr. Mumtaz Chandio S/o not known, [ii] Shoaib Chandio S/o not known and [iii] Imtiaz Chandio S/o not known. In the Cr. I.D. Complaint No.37 of 2010, SHO Police Station Qasimabad, Hyderabad, was joined in the array of Respondents but not in his capacity as an accused. The prayers sought in the Cr. I.D. Complaint read as follows:-
(a) That this Honourable Court may be pleased to proceed against the accused persons according to law and restore the possession of the said bungalow to the complainant.
(b) That this Court may be pleased to take cognizance of the case punish the private accused/respondents No.1 to 3 U/S 3(2) of Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 as prima facie the respondents have committed the offence U/s 3 (1) (2) of the said Act.
(c) That this Honourable Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No.9 SHO PS Qasiamabad Hyderabad to investigate the matter impartially and submit the report before this Honourable Court within 15 days and get restore the possession of the said bungalow to the complainant. [Underlining is ours]
(d) This Honourable Court may be pleased to compensate the complainant in accordance with provisions of section 544 Cr.P.C.
(e) Costs of the complain be borne upon the respondents.
(f) Any other relief which this Honourable Court deems fit and proper may pleased be awarded to the complainant.
4. During pendency of the aforesaid Criminal I.D. Complaint No.37 of 2010, the Complainant lady/Respondent No.2 herein, also opted to file an APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 7 (1) OF ILLEGAL DISPOSSESSION ACT, 2005 [Act XI of 2005], with a prayer for issuing direction to the aforesaid three [3] accused persons for putting the Complainant lady/Respondent No.2 herein [Mst. Suriya Kausar Qureshi D/o Muhammad Ameer Bux Qureshi] in possession of the `Subject Bungalow` No.170/100 admeasuring 100 sq.yards situated at street No.06, Abdullah Town, Qasimabad, Hyderabad, which subject Bungalow, as per the Complainant lady/Respondent No.2`s stand was purchased by her through a Registered Sub-Lease Deed No.2996 dated 29.06.1999, from M/s. Hussain Private Limited through its` Director Muhammad Ehsan Qureshi S/o Abdullah Qureshi. The `Subject Bungalow`, as claimed, has also been entered in the name of Complainant lady/Respondent No.2, in `Deh Form-VII` of the Revenue Record.
5. On 16.08.2011, when the Application Under Section 7 (1) of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, filed in the Criminal I.D. Complaint No.37/2010, [Mst. Suriya Kausar [Retired Professor] D/o Muhammad Ameer Bux Qureshi v. Dr. Mumtaz Chandio S/o not known & 3 others], came-up before the court of learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, then, the said Application Under Section 7[1] was allowed and resultantly, SHO, P.S. Nasim Nagar, Hyderabad, was directed not only to take-over possession of the `Subject Bungalow` by breaking open the locks of door[s] but also hand over possession thereof, to the Complainant lady/Respondent No.2 herein. The `relevant part` of order dated 16.08.2011 [Annexure `B` to the MoP], for ready reference is reproduced herein below:-
I have heard the learned counsel for the complainant, perused documents of the bungalow in question, report of SHO and Mukhtiarkar, which reveal that the complainant is real owner of the aforesaid bungalow and the respondents have illegally occupied the said bungalow without any title documents and at present as per report of Process Server, the respondents are not residing in the bungalow in question and have put the lock to the bungalow, the complainant is appearing in the court since 2010, looking the above situation I allow application under section 7 (1) of Illegal Dispossession Act and direct the SHO Nasim Nagar to take the possession of the aforesaid bungalow to the complainant after breaking the locks of the door of bungalow and handover the same to the complainant. [Underlining is ours]
6. The present petitioner namely Muhammad Siddique S/o Khalid Memon upon getting knowledge about the aforesaid Order dated 16.08.2011, [Annexure `B` to the MoP], passed by the learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, opted to challenge the said Order in a `CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.172 OF 2011` [Muhammad Siddique v. IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad & 5 others], before this Court. The said CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.S-172 OF 2011 when later on, came-up before a Single Bench of this Court on 12.10.2012, then, the `impugned order` dated 16.08.2011 [Annexure `B` to the MoP], passed in Criminal I.D. Complaint No.37 of 2010 [Mst. Suriya Kausar Qureshi v. Dr. Mumtaz Chandio & 3 others], by learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, was SET ASIDE and the case was REMANDED to the trial court for conducting proper investigation by officer, incharge regarding illegal dispossession of the Complainant lady/Respondent No.2 herein. The `operative part` of order dated 12.10.2012 [Annexure `C` to the MoP], passed by a Single Bench of this Court in Criminal Revision Application No.172 of 2011, filed by Petitioner herein, reads as follows:-
Be that as it may, in view of the above, I set aside the impugned order dated 16.8.2011 and remand the case to the trial Court for conducting proper investigation by officer incharge regarding illegal dispossession of complainant/Suriya Kausar and only then a proper speaking order touching the question of illegal dispossession of the complainant shall be passed by the trial Court in accordance with law. The applicant who claims to be the owner of subject property on the basis of certain title documents and also claims to be in possession of the subject Bungalow regarding which the impugned order, whereby interim possession of the said Bungalow was handed over to the complainant, may also be heard and if necessary, may be impleaded as a party in the proceedings. Office is directed to send the R&Ps back to the trial Court. [Underlining is ours]
7. Pursuant to passing of the aforesaid order dated 12.10.2012, when the CRIMINAL I.D. COMPLAINT NO.37/2010, filed by Respondent No.2 lady herein [Mst. Suriya Kausar Qureshi v. Dr. Mumtaz Chandio & 2 others] and then pending, came-up before the Court of IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, then, a well detailed and speaking Order dated 06.02.2013, was passed. Being relevant `Para-10` therefrom, for ready reference is reproduced here-in-below:-
10. In the circumstances, prima-facie the case is made out not only against the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 but also against Muhammad Siddique and Ghulam Murtaza, so they are directed to join and impleaded as accused persons. The complaint, is, therefore, registered and cognizance is taken against them, their attendance is directed to be secured that bailable warrants in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each with surety of like amount. Since the court has taken the cognizance and the complainant lady has sold out the property to one Ameer Ali Shah, therefore, it is further directed complainant will not execute the sale deed in favour of the Ameer Ali Shah, nor to create any third party interest and status quo in respect of the said property will be maintained by all parties concerned till final disposal of the case. Order accordingly.
[Underlining is ours]
8. The Petitioner herein, somehow, again feeling `aggrieved` and `dis-satisfied` with order dated 06.02.2013 [Annexure `C` to the MoP], filed another `CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.S- 26 OF 2013` [Muhammad Siddique v. IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad & 6 others], before this Circuit Court, Hyderabad, on 11.02.2013, with a prayer for setting aside the impugned order dated 06.02.2013 [Annexure `E` to the MoP].
9. The aforesaid CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.S- 26 OF 2013, filed by the Petitioner herein, [Muhammad Siddique v. IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad & 6 others] when later on, came-up before a Single Bench of this Circuit Court, Hyderabad, on 27.02.2014 then, the same was `disposed of` as having served its` purpose. The Petitioner herein, nevertheless, was also directed to seek adequate remedy, if, available to him, from the competent forum. For convenience purpose, the relevant part of Order dated 27.02.2014, passed by Hon`able Single Bench of this Court in `CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.S- 26 OF 2013`, is reproduced hereinbelow:-
Mr. Zaheeruddin Sahito, Advocate filed Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.2, taken on the record. Learned counsel for applicant filed copy of daily newspaper Kawish, wherein the notice has been published. On the other side, learned counsel for respondent No.2 Mst. Suriya Kausar, by filing his Vakalatnama submits that respondent No.2 has got the possession of disputed property by order of IIIrd Additional District & Sessions Judge and thereafter, the applicant may have to avail remedy available to him by seeking adequate remedy from the competent forum. In such view of the matter, purpose of filing of instant criminal revision application has been served, which is accordingly disposed of, with direction that the applicant may have to seek adequate remedy, if available to him, from the competent forum. [Underlining is ours]
10. The Complainant lady / Respondent No.2 herein, despite passing of the earlier Order dated 06.02.2013, [referred to and reproduced in Para 10 hereof] passed in `CR. I.D. COMPLAINT NO.37 OF 2010` [Annexure `D` to the MoP], whereby interalia the Complainant lady/Respondent No.2 herein, was restrained from EXECUTING ANY SALE DEED in favour of one Ameer Ali Shah, all other parties to the said CR. I.D. COMPLAINT NO.37 OF 2010, were also directed to maintain statusquo, however, in her own wisdom and in a calculated manner opted to file a `STATEMENT` dated 11.09.2013 [Annexure `F`to the MoP] in the then, pending `CRIMINAL I.D. COMPLAINT NO.37 OF 2010` [Mst. Suriya Kausar Qureshi v. Dr. Mumtaz Chandio & 2 others], with a prayer therein, for withdrawal of the aforesaid Cr. I.D. Complaint on the plea, as possession of the `Subject Bungalow` had already been given / handed over to her i.e. under the `Interim Order` dated 16.08.2011, earlier passed on the Complainant lady/Respondent No.2`s Application U/S 7(1) of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. [Act XI of 2005], by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.
11. The said `statement` dated 11.09.2013, filed by the Complainant lady viz. Mst. Suriya Kausar Qureshi D/o Muhammad Ameer Bux Qureshi/Respondent No.2 herein, and the `impugned order` passed thereon, both dated 11.09.2013, are reproduced at [a] and [b], respectively, here-in-below:-
S T A T E M E N T
[a]. Undersigned do hereby withdraw from case as such possession is handed over to the complainant.
Hyd. Sd/
Dated. 11.09.2013. Advocate for Complainant.
Sd/-11.9.13.
Complainant.
[b]. ORDER
I.D is disposed being withdrawn.
Sd/-11.9.13.
Judge
12. The Petitioner herein, thus for 3rd time feeling `aggrieved` and `dis-satisfied` with the disposal of I.D. Complaint No.37 of 2010, through order dated 11.09.2013, passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, opted to approach this Court by way of filing the instant Constitutional Petition, on 03.03.2014, `inter-alia` for setting aside the` impugned order` dated 11.09.2013, mainly on the ground that since, the learned trial Court i.e. 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, has already joined the Petitioner herein, as a party in the Criminal I.D. Complaint No.37 of 2010, vide its` Order dated 06.02.2013 [i.e. pursuant to and in compliance with order dated 12.10.2012, passed by Honourable Single Bench of this Court, in Cr. Rev. Appl. No.S-172 of 2011] and has also taken the cognizance of case against the Petitioner herein and another as such, the trial Court, after `REMAND OF CASE` and of taking cognizance and registration of the case, i.e. Criminal I.D. Complaint No.37 of 2010, filed by Complainant lady / Respondent No.2 herein [Mst. Suriya Kausar Qureshi v. Dr. Mumtaz Chandio & others including the Petitioner], was not justified in permitting the Complainant lady/Respondent No.2 herein to withdraw the said Cr. I.D. Complaint without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner herein, and/or re-possessing/re-taking back the possession of the `Subject Bungalow` having handed over to the Complainant lady/Respondent No.2 herein, in compliance with an Interlocutory order of 16.08.2011, passed by learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, on the Application under Section 7 [1] of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 [Act XI of 2005], filed by the Complainant lady/Respondent No.2 herein, in Criminal I.D. Complaint No.37 of 2010.
13. On filing the instant Petition on 03.03.2014, when the same came-up before the Court on 27.03.2014, then, notices were issued to the Respondents No.2 to 7 and learned A.A.G. On service, learned A.A.G. filed `para-wise comments` on behalf of official Respondents No.4 to 7. The private Respondents however, remained un-served. Finally, on 16.05.2017, private Respondents were ordered to be served through all modes of service including `Publication` for 30.05.2017. Despite, issuance of notices by all modes including Publication, the private Respondents however, in their own wisdom either failed and/or otherwise, avoided to come forward and contest the Petition in hand. On 30.05.2017, service, nonetheless, was `held good` upon the private Respondents herein.
14. Lastly, on 17.10.2018, when the above Petition came-up before this bench [by that time one Hon`able member of the earlier Bench was not available at Hyderabad Circuit Court due to change of roster], as being a `part-heard` matter then, learned counsel for the Petitioner who, only had argued this matter on 12.09.2018, to some extent and learned A.A.G. who yet to begin/start his arguments, opted to argue this matter `afresh` [before us as being treated to be a `de-part heard` matter, as they wished/wanted a `swift disposal` of this case pending since, 03.03.2014].
15. Under circumstances, while, arguing the matter afresh, Mr. Mashooque Ali Bhurgri, learned counsel for the Petitioner forcefully contended that this Court while, `SETTING-ASIDE`, the earlier order dated 16.08.2011, by REMANDING the case vide Order dated 12.10.2012, the learned Trial Court was directed to conduct proper investigation by an officer incharge viz-a-viz the alleged illegal `dispossession` of the Complainant lady viz. Suriya Kausar Qureshi and only thereafter, a `proper speaking order` as directed by a single bench of this court was to be passed in accordance with law.
16. Moreover, in Order dated 12.10.2012, regarding Petitioner`s claim of `ownership` and `possession`, it was observed that the Petitioner herein [who was Applicant in Cr. Rev. Appl. No.S-172 of 2011] since, is claiming `ownership` and `possession` of the subject property [Subject Bungalow], on the basis of `certain documents` as such, Petitioner be also heard and if, necessary he also be impleaded in `Criminal I.D. Complaint No.37 of 2010` [Mst. Suriya Kausar Qureshi v. Dr. Mumtaz Chandio & 3 others], as a party. Mr. Mashooque Ali Bhurgri, learned counsel for the Petitioner in view of the above, vehemently contended that the learned Trial Court, under such scenario, was not legally justified in permitting the `withdrawal` of the Criminal I.D. Complaint No.37 of 2010 vide the `impugned order` dated 11.09.2013 and that too at the back of the Petitioner herein. Even otherwise, passing of the `impugned order` without getting back the possession of the `Subject Bungalow` having already been given/handed over to the Complainant lady/Respondent No.2 herein, under an Interim Order dated 12.10.2012, passed by the learned trial Court on the Complainant`s Application, filed under sub-Section [1] of Section 7 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 [Act XI of 2005], as urged, is not only erroneous, contrary to law but also illegal, as such, the same is liable to be set-aside.
17. Mr. Mashooque Ali, next contended that the learned Trial Court, even did not take care of its` own order dated 06.02.2013 [Annexure `D-2` to the MoP]. Elaborating his contention, Petitioner`s counsel made reference to `Para-10` of order dated 06.02.2013 and submitted that Trial Court itself, had observed that not only a prima facie case had been made out against Respondents / accused No-[i] Dr. Mumtaz Chandio S/o not known, [ii] Shoaib Chandio S/o not known and [iii] Imtiaz Chandio S/o not known but also against Muhammad Siddique [Petitioner herein] and one Ghulam Raza who, were also ordered to be joined / impleaded as accused in Criminal I.D. Complaint No.37 of 2010 [Mst. Suriya Kausar Qureshi v. Dr. Mumtaz Chandio & others] then pending before the trial Court. Moreover, under order 06.02.2013, the Complaint filed on 06.05.2010 by the Complainant lady / Respondent No.2 herein, was also `registered` and `cognizance` of the case was taken against the newly added / joined accused persons as well. Besides, to ensure the attendance of accused persons by the trial Court, bailable warrants in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each with surety amount of the like amount were also then issued by the Court of IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.
18. From perusal of `Order dated 06.02.2013`, it reveals that the Trial Court, not only taken cognizance of the offence but also keeping in view the alleged Sale of `Subject Bungalow` bearing No.A-170/100 admeasuring 100 Sq. Yards situated in Street No.6, Abdullah Town, Qasiamabad, Hyderabad, by Respondent No.2 herein/Complainant lady to one AMEER ALI SHAH, further direction was issued to her i.e. the Complainant lady not to execute any Sale Deed in favour of the said AMEER ALI SHAH or otherwise, any 3rd party interest be created in respect of the Subject Bungalow. Besides, all parties concerned, were directed to `maintain Statusquo` in respect of the `Subject Bungalow` till `final disposal` of the Criminal I.D. Complaint No.37 of 2010 [Mst. Suriya Kausar Qureshi v. Dr. Mumtaz Chandio & others including the Petitioner viz. Muhammad Siddique and one Ghulam Raza], filed by Complainant lady / Respondent No.2 herein.
19. Lastly, learned counsel for the Petitioner urged that Order dated 11.09.2013 whereby, the Criminal I.D. Complaint No.37 of 2010, was `disposed of` as withdrawn needs to be set-aside, as it has been passed in clear violation of Order dated 12.10.2012 [Annexure `C` to the MoP], passed by a single bench of this Court in Cr. Rev. Appl: No. 172 of 2-011 [Muhammad Siddique v. IVth Additional Sessions Judge Hyderabad & others], as well as, of trial Court`s own order dated 06.02.2013 [Annexure `D` to the MoP]. Per Mr. Mashooque Ali Bhurgri, the `impugned order` dated 11.09.2013, if, not set-aside then, of-course, the Petitioner herein shall be seriously prejudiced, interalia for the obvious reason the trial Court has failed to retake / restore the possession of the `Subject Bungalow` having already been given / handed over to the Complainant lady/Respondent No.2 herein, on the basis of an Interim Order dated 16.08.2011, having passed by trial Court on an Application U/S 7[1] of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 [Act XI of 2005], moved/filed in Criminal I.D. Complaint No.37 of 2010 by the Complainant lady/Respondent No.2 herein initially before the Court of IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.
20. On the other hand, Mr. Allah Bachayo Soomro, learned Additional Advocate General while, arguing the case referred to `para-wise comments` of the official Respondents No.4 to 7 and submitted that as per `para-wise comments` of the SHO, P.S. Qasimabad, Hyderabad [Respondent No.4 herein], the `Subject Bungalow` No.170/100, is situated within the jurisdiction of P.S. Nasim Nagar, as such, the joining of SHO, P.S. Qasimabad, Hyderabad/Respondent No.4 herein, in the array of Respondents besides, being irrelevant also needs to be deleted if, `impugned order` is set-aside. Per learned A.A.G, no doubt, a dispute is going on between private parties not only over the `possession` of the `Subject Bungalow`, but also `over ownership` thereof. Nevertheless, as urged, by learned A.A.G, `Official Respondents` do nothing / not concerned with such dispute at all until and unless law and order situation is created and / or otherwise, official Respondents are under legal obligation to render assistance/comply with the orders if any passed by Courts. Per A.A.G, the officer-in-charge of a Police Station if failed to render such assistance then, no doubt, he shall expose himself to mis-conduct for which the Court may direct departmental action against him.
21. Heard and perused the record.
22. Before proceeding further, we would like to refer to and reproduce therein, the `substantive provisions` of Section 3 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 [Act XI of 2005], which speak about the nature of offence and offender in the terms as below:-
"3. Prevention of illegal possession of property, etc. (1) No one shall enter into or upon any property to dispossess, grab, control or occupy it without having any lawful authority to do so with the intention to dispossess, grab, control or occupy the property from owners or occupier of such property.
(2) Whoever contravenes the provisions of the subsection (1) shall, without prejudice to, any punishment to which he may be liable under any other law for the time being in force, be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to ten years and with fine and the victim of the offence shall also be compensated in accordance with the provision of section 544-A of the Code. [Underlining is ours]
23. Manifestly, the aforesaid provisions of Section 3 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 [Act XI of 2005], not only describe the offence but also offender and needless to say, clearly demonstrates that whoever commits the offence of Illegal Dispossession, as described under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 [Act XI of 2005], against a lawful owner or occupier then, such person `indeed`, can be prosecuted under its` `substantive provisions` without any restriction. No doubt, the provisions of Section 3 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 [Act XI of 2005], describe the offence exhaustively but not the offenders in specific terms rather, it uses the general terms, such as, no one and whoever for the offenders.
24. Nevertheless, the larger bench of Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, in case of GULSHAN BIBI & OTHERS V. MUHAMMAD SADIQ & OTHERS while, dealing with like such situation and interpreting the scope of the provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 [Act XI of 2005], finally, came to the conclusion that the substantive provisions of Section 3 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 [Act XI of 2005], as being understood usually, are not restrictive to any category of persons or otherwise, it have any ambiguity and absurdity. Needless to say, a `Preamble`, is a gateway to a Statute but if, the statute / enactment itself, is clear and unambiguous then, in such like eventuality, the Preamble in no event, is to undermine the clear meaning of the provisions of an Act. The case if, however, is otherwise, then, `of-course`, a Preamble may be relevant for explaining / exploring the actual object and meaning of an enactment. The relevant paragraphs that is 5, 6, 7 and 8 from the case of GULSHAN BIBI & OTHERS v. MUHAMMAD SADIQ & OTHERS, relied upon and reproduced in the latest case of Sheikh Muhammad Naseem v. Mst. Farida Gul [2016 SCMR 1931], delivered by a 5 member bench of Hon`able Supreme Court of Pakistan, for ready reference are reproduced here-in-below:-
5. A bare reading of subsection (1) of section 3 the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 shows that terms like dispossess, grab, control or occupy have been used which clearly mean that illegal dispossession in all forms have been made an offence and by the use of the terms 'no one' and 'whoever' in subsections (1) and (2) of section 3, anyone and everyone who commits such an offence was made liable for punishment. The very use of the terms like 'no one' and 'whoever' are clearly intended to convey the widest possible meaning for the offenders. Thus without any distinction any person who illegally dispossesses, grabs, controls or occupies property of a lawful owner or occupier shall be liable for prosecution under the provisions of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The second set of cases has however restricted the scope and application of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 to a particular class of offenders only i.e. those who possess the credentials or antecedents of being 'land grabbers' or Qabza Group by placing reliance on the term 'property grabbers' that appears in the preamble of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. From the mere use of the term 'property grabbers' in the preamble one cannot reach the conclusion that the legislature intended that a complainant must first establish that the accused possesses the credentials or antecedents of being a professional land grabber or member of a Qabza Group in order to maintain his complaint under the said Act. The term 'property grabber' can be construed to refer to anyone who has committed the act of grabbing someone's property illegally. Limiting the scope and application of the provisions of the main enactment to a particular class of offenders and that too on the basis of a term used in the preamble would not only deflect the Court to go into issues which are not subject matter of the complaint that is before it but at the same time such an interpretation would violate the cardinal principle of the statutory construction that where the language of the substantive provision of an enactment is clear and not open to any doubt then the preamble cannot be used to curtail or enlarge its scope. Thus where the enactment is clear and unambiguous, the preamble cannot be used to undermine the clear meaning of the provisions of the Act or give it a different meaning. Only where the object or meaning of an enactment is not clear, the preamble may be resorted to in order to explain it. So the preamble is to be resorted only to explain and give meaning to any provision of the enactment where its language is open to doubt or is ambiguous or susceptible to more than one meaning. In the presence of the general terms like 'anyone' or 'whoever' that have been used to describe the offender, which are clear and wide in their application, the scope of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 cannot be confined to any particular class of offenders. [Underlining is ours]
6. It would also be not out of place to mention here that reference to Legislative history is permissible only as an aid to construction of legislation which is ambiguous or obscure or the literal meaning of which leads to an absurdity i.e. from the text of a statute, the court is unable to decipher the real intent of the Legislature. Where the text is clear and there exists no ambiguity, resort to the legislative history may actually be counter-productive. This is because legislative history contains sporadic accounts and arguments made by the parliamentarians and the final outcome of debates and arguments made in the parliament could be much different. Therefore, the real intention of the parliament is to be first and foremost ascertained from the provisions of the enactment itself and frequent resort to the legislative history is not warranted. In this regard the case of Pepper v. Hart [1992] 3 WLR 1032, a judgment from English jurisdiction, can be referred with considerable advantage. [Underlining is ours]
7. From what has been discussed above it is evident that no provision of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 imposes any precondition on the basis of which a particular class of offenders could only be prosecuted. The Act aims at granting efficacious relief to lawful owners and occupiers in case they are dispossessed by anyone without lawful authority. Section 3(1) of the said Act by using the terms 'anyone' and 'whoever' for the offenders clearly warns all persons from committing the offence described therein and when found guilty by the court are to be punished without attaching any condition whatsoever as to the maintainability of the complaint. So all that the Court has to see is whether the accused nominated in the complaint has entered into or upon the property in dispute in order to dispossess, grab, control, or occupy it without any lawful authority. Nothing else is required to be established by the complainant as no precondition has been attached under any provision of the said Act which conveys the command of the legislature that only such accused would be prosecuted who holds the credentials and antecedents of 'land grabbers' or 'Qabza Group'. It does not appeal to reason that for commission of an offence reported it the complaint filed under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 the Legislature would intent to punish only those who hold history of committing a particular kind of offence but would let go an accused who though has committed the offence reported in the complaint but does not hold the record of committing a particular kind of offence. In our view trial of a case is to be relatable to the property which is subject matter of the complainant, pure and simple. Any past history of the accused with regard to his act of dispossession having no nexus with the complaint cannot be taken into consideration in order to decide whether the accused stands qualified to be awarded a sentence under the Act or not. Once the offence reported in the complaint stands proved against the accused then he cannot escape punishment under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. [Underlining is ours]
8. In view of the above discussion we conclude that in any proceedings initiated under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, the issues which fall for decision would be whether the offence against a lawful owner or occupier, as described in the complaint, has taken place and whether it is the accused who has committed it without any lawful authority. Anyone found committing the offence described in section 3 would be amenable to prosecution under the provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 and no past record of the accused needs to be gone into by the court. [Underlining is ours]
25. Further, in the latest case of SHEIKH MUHAMMAD NASEEM V. MST. FARIDA GUL [2016 SCMR 1931], the five [5] member bench of Hon`able Supreme Court of Pakistan while, dilating upon `inter-alia` the terms `property grabbers` and `side by side` proceeding of `civil litigation` regarding illegal dispossession of a lawful `owner` or `occupier` from the immovable property and proceeding of `criminal nature` under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 [Act XI of 2005], has observed in `Para-3` and `Para-5` thereof, respectfully as follows:-
3. We may state that the term 'property grabbers' is not one of those terms that is popularly associated with any particular class of offenders such as the terms 'Land grabbers', 'Qabza Mafia' or 'Qabza Group'. In fact none of the popular terms which are identified with a specific category of offenders have been used anywhere in the Act. As the term 'property grabbers' appearing in the preamble of the Act has been used in general sense, it cannot be identified with any particular category of offenders in order to restrict the scope and applicability of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 to a particular category of offenders. Additionally, the substantive provision of Illegal Dispossession Act i.e. section 3 expressly uses general terms such as 'no one' and 'whoever' for the offender. This clearly indicates that the widest possible meaning is to be attributed to these terms. Thus the provisions of section 3 clearly demonstrate that whosoever commits the act of illegal dispossession, as described in the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 against a lawful owner or a lawful occupier, he can be prosecuted under its provisions without any restriction. [Underlining is ours]
5. Any act which entails civil liability under civil law as well as criminal penalty under criminal law, such as the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 then a person can be tried under both kinds of proceedings, which are independent of each other. Once the offence reported in the complaint stands proved against the accused within the confines of the provisions of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 then he cannot escape punishment on the ground that some civil litigation on the same issue is pending adjudication between the parties. No one can be allowed to take law in his own hands and unlawfully dispossess an owner or lawful occupier of an immovable property and then seek to thwart the criminal proceedings initiated against him under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 on the pretext that civil litigation on the issue is pending adjudication between the parties in a court of law. Therefore, irrespective of any civil litigation that may be pending in any Court, where an offence, as described in the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, has been committed, the proceedings under the said Act can be initiated as the same would be maintainable in law. [Underlining is ours]
26. Reverting back to the case in hand, it appears that the Complainant lady/Respondent No.2 herein, filed a Complaint Under Section 3(2), 5 and 7 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 [Act XI of 2005], before the Court of learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, sometime, in May, 2010, claiming therein, herself as a purchaser of the `Subject Bungalow` No.170/100 admeasuring 100 sq.yards situated at street No.06, Abdullah Town, Qasimabad, Hyderabad, through a registered Sub-Lease Deed No.2996 dated 29.06.1989 and which as asserted is duly executed between M/s Husssin [Pvt] Ltd. and the Complainant lady/Respondent No.2 herein. Per stand taken by the Complainant lady/Respondent No.2 herein, the `possession` thereof, was also handed over to the Complainant lady. The `Subject Bungalow`, as per Complainant lady`s version had later on, also been mutated / entered in Deh-Form VII of the revenue record.
27. Per Complainant lady`s / Respondent No.2`s stand in the year, 2007, due to severe illness she shifted to Karachi, leaving the `Subject Bungalow` duly locked. Per Complainant lady`s/Respondent No.2 version she remained in Karachi, for about 2/3 years. During her absence, one Mirajuddin filed a F.C. Suit No.16 of 2009, claiming himself therein, as a purchaser of the Subject Bungalow from the Complainant lady / Respondent No.2 herein [viz. Mst. Suriya Kausar Qureshi D/o Muhammad Ameer Bux Qureshi]. The above suit, as asserted in CRIMINAL I.D. COMPLAINT NO.37 OF 2010 [Mst. Suriya Kausar Qureshi v. Dr. Mumtaz Chandio & others], later on, however, was withdrawn by said Mirajuddin.
28. The Complainant lady/Respondent No.2 herein, thereafter started to reside in Subject Bungalow. Later on, sometime, in December, 2009, the Complainant lady/Respondent No.2 herein, as pleaded, again went to Karachi for visit purposes and when, after 10/12 days, she returned back to Hyderabad, then she had found no lock on the main gate of the Subject Bungalow. Nevertheless, when she tried to enter the `Subject Bungalow` then, the private Respondents/accused [i] Dr. Mumtaz Chandio S/o not known, [ii] Shoaib Chandio S/o not known and [iii] Imtiaz Chandio S/o not known, as alleged, by the Complainant lady / Respondent No.2 herein, restrained her entry in the Subject Bungalow. Under such circumstances, the Complainant lady/Respondent No.2 herein, constrained to file a Complaint under Section 3(2), 5 & 7 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 [Act XI of 2005], before the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. In the Complaint it was prayed to proceed against the accused persons and to take cognizance of the case, punish the private accused persons according to law and restore the possession of Subject Bungalow to the Complainant lady/Respondent No.2 herein.
29. Per record, due `investigation` / `inquiry` in terms of Section 5 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 [Act XI of 2005], thereafter was conducted and report was called from SHO Police Station Nasim Nagar. Besides, a report was also called from the Mukhtiarkar Revenue/Special Judicial Magistrate, Qasimabad in which the Complainant lady/Respondent No.2, herein was shown/stated as owner of the `Subject Bungalow`. Consequently, cognizance of the case was taken on 16.10.2010 and the Criminal Complaint was registered and B.Ws in sum of Rs.25,000/- were also issued against the three [3] accused persons. The complainant lady/Respondent No.2 herein, during pendency of I.D. Complaint No.37 of 2010, also filed an Application u/s 7 (1) of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 [Act XI of 2005]. The said Application was not only entertained but also allowed on 16.08.2011, by the trial Court. As per direction of the trial Court vide order dated 16.08.2011, the `possession` of the `Subject Bungalow` was also taken and thereafter, handed over to the Complainant lady/Respondent No.2 herein.
30. The aforesaid order of 16.08.2011, thereafter, was challenged by the Petitioner herein, in a Cr. Rev. Appl: No.S-172 of 2011 [Muhammad Siddique v. IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad & 6 others], claiming therein himself as an owner of the `Subject Bungalow` on the basis of title documents including `REGISTERED SALE DEED` dated 25.08.2011 [Annexure `A` to the MoP], as averred, entered into between one Ghulam Raza Abro s/o Ghulam Ali Abro and Muhammad Siddique s/o Khalid Memon herein. The said Cr. Revision Application No.172 of 2011, on 12.10.2012, was allowed and the `impugned order` dated 16.08.2011, passed by the trial Court was set aside by remanding the case to the trial Court for conducting `proper investigation` by an officer incharge of Police Station. The trial Court, as per Order dated 12.10.2012, was further directed to hear the petitioner herein, and if, thereafter, it was found necessary, then, the Petitioner be impleaded in the pending `CRIMINAL I.D. COMPLAINT NO.37 OF 2010` [Mst. Suriya Kausar Qureshi v. Dr. Mumtaz Chandio & others], filed by the Complainant lady / Respondent No.2 herein.
31. Pursuant to the `Remand Order` dated 12.10.2012, passed by the single bench of this Court in Cr. Rev. Appl: No.S-172 of 2011, not only the Petitioner herein viz. Muhammad Siddique but one Ghulam Raza with whom a Sale Deed dated 25.08.2011, purportedly executed, was also joined / impleaded in Cr. I.D. Complaint No.37 of 2010. Besides, against them, the complaint was also `registered` and `cognizance` of the case was taken by observing that prima-facie the case has been made out not only against the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 in the Criminal I.D. Complaint No.37 of 2010 but also against Muhammad Siddique and Ghulam Murtaza. Further they were directed to be joined and impleaded as accused persons. The complaint against them was also registered and cognizance was taken. For securing their attendance bailable warrants in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each with surety in the like amount was ordered. Moreover, the trial Court in view of the fact that the complainant lady has sold out the property to one Ameer Ali Shah, she was further directed not to execute any sale deed in favour of Ameer Ali Shah, nor otherwise to create any third party interest and status-quo in respect of the said property will be maintained by all parties concerned till final disposal of the case i.e. CRIMINAL I.D. COMPLAINT NO.37 OF 2010 filed by the Complainant lady/Respondent No.2 herein.
32. The present Petitioner herein, nevertheless, again `feeling aggrieved` and `dis-satisfied` with Order dated 06.02.2013, whereby, the CRIMINAL I.D. COMPLAINT NO.37 OF 2010 filed by Respondent No.2, the Petitioner herein and one Ghulam Raza were joined/impleaded, was not only registered but cognizance of the case was also taken by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, challenged the same in CR. REV. APPL: NO.S-26 OF 2013, filed on 21.02.2013. The said Cr. Rev. Application, however, was `disposed of` vide order dated 27.02.2014 passed by a single bench of this Court with direction to the Petitioner herein to seek adequate remedy if available to him from the competent forum.
33. The main grievance of the petitioner herein, however, is to the effect and extent that `trial Court` without affording opportunity of hearing to him at the time of `disposal` of CRIMINAL I.D. COMPLAINT NO.37 OF 2010 [Mst. Suriya Kausar Qureshi v. Dr. Mumtaz Chandio & 2 others], filed by the Complainant lady/Respondent No.2 herein, was permitted as `withdrawn` through the impugned order dated 11.09.2013 and that too without restoration of possession/taking over back the possession, from the Complainant lady/Respondent No.2 herein, earlier given/handed over to her under an Interim Order dated 16.08.2011, passed by trial Court on the Application of the Complainant lady/Respondent No.2 herein filed under Section 7 [1] of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 [Act XI of 2005] in Criminal I.D. Complaint no.37 of 2010.
34. To properly appreciate the contention of the petitioner`s counsel at this juncture we would like to refer to and reproduce herein Section 7 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 [Act XI of 2005], as under:-
7. Eviction and mode of recovery as an interim relief:-
(1) If during trial the Court is satisfied that a person is found prima facie to be not in lawful possession, the Court shall, as an interim relief direct him to put the owner or occupier as the case may be, in possession.
(2) Where the person against whom any such order is passed under sub-section (1) fails to comply with the same, the Court shall, notwithstanding any other law for the time being in force, take such steps and pass such order as may be necessary to put owner or occupier in possession.
(3) The Court may authorize any official or officer to take possession for securing compliance with its orders under sub-section (1). The person so authorized may use or cause to be used such force as may be necessary.
(4) If any person, authorized by the Court, under sub-section (3) requires police assistance in the exercise of his power under this Act, he may send a requisition to the officer-in-charge of a police station who shall on such requisition render such assistance as may be required.
(5) The failure of the officer-in-charge of police station to render assistance under sub-section (4) shall amount to misconduct for which the Court may direct departmental action against him. [Underlining is ours]
35. Bare perusal of sub-section (1) of Section 7 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 [Act XI of 2005], would show that if, during trial, Court is satisfied that a person `prima facie` is not in a lawful possession, then the Court, as an `interim relief`, direct such person[s] to put the owner or occupier, as the case may be, in possession. In the case in hand, it is `significant to note`, that not only order dated 16.08.2011, where-under, the Complainant lady/Respondent No.2 herein, was TEMPORARILY put in possession has been set-aside vide order dated 12.10.2012, passed in CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.172 OF 2013 [Muhammad Siddique v. IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad & 5 others] but the learned single bench of this Court while then REMANDING the case, the trial Court, was also directed to `conduct proper investigation` by an officer incharge of the Police Station in respect of illegal dispossession of the Complainant lady/Respondent No.2 herein, and thereafter, pass a proper speaking order touching the question of illegal dispossession of the Complainant lady/Respondent No.2 herein, in accordance with law. On remand of the case as per order dated 16.10.2012, the trial court thereafter, no doubt, has passed a detailed order dated 06.02.2013 whereby, the Petitioner herein and one Ghulam Raza have not only been impleaded in Cr. I.D. Complaint No.37 of 2010 but against them complaint has also been registered and cognizance of the case has been taken by the trial court.
36. Interalia on the aforesaid aspect of the matter, we would like to refer herein to cases of [a] EDWARD HENRY LOUIS V. DR. MUHAMMAD SAFDAR [2009 P.Cr.L.J. 1359] and [b] MANSAB ALI V. SULEMAN AND 7 OTHERS [2008 P.Cr.L.J. 199] and reproduce therefrom, the relevant portions at [a] and [b] respectively as under:-
[a] 2009 P.Cr.L.J. 1359:
It is also important to observe that the main purpose of "Act of 2005" is to curb the activities of land grabbers and to protect the rights of owners and lawful occupants. However, its application to the person having no connection with the property grabbers must be with great caution and that's why the Legislature in his wisdom has instead of empowering the Court to grant interim relief at any stage of the case has restricted it to a stage when the Court after going through the material available before it comes to conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial of the accused. In the circumstances I am of the view that the powers for granting interim relief under the provision of subsection (1) of section 7 can only be exercised after framing the charge and not before that. [Underlining is ours]
[b] 2008 P.Cr.L.J. 199:
10. According to the learned Single Bench, after having passed the order dated 28-10-2006 and putting the present appellant into possession, the learned Additional Sessions Judge should have decided the complaint on its merit. According to the learned Single Bench, once the court had formed an opinion that prima facie case of illegal dispossession was made out, he should have proceeded with the trial of the case to take it to its logical conclusion. [Underlining is ours]
11. We agree with the learned Single Bench. Under section 7 of the Act order can be passed for a temporary relief during the pendency of the main case. If the main case was allowed to have been withdrawn, there was no justification for the interim order/relief to continue which was granted only on the basis of pendency of the main case/complaint. We also agree with the observation of the learned Single Bench orders, dated 28-10-2006 and 31-10-2006 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge prejudiced the case of the respondents of proving their right, hence they suffered for an act of the Court/Additional Sessions Judge. Even otherwise in the presence of the order the learned Single Bench dated 30-10-2006 how the learned Additional Sessions Judge could pass order dated 31-10-2006? For the reasons, noted above, this appeal is dismissed and the impugned order of the learned Single Bench dated 22-3-2007 is upheld. [Underlining is ours]
37. In the case in hand the situation, however, is different. Per order dated 12.10.2012, passed by a Hon`able Single Bench of this Court, the case of the Petitioner, who not only `claiming ownership` of the [Subject Bungalow] on the basis of `certain documents`, but also possession thereof, as observed, was needed to be heard and if, necessary, the Petitioner was also be impleaded as a party in CRIMINAL I.D. COMPLAINT NO.37 OF 2010 [Mst. Suriya Kausar Qureshi v. Dr. Mumtaz Chandio & others]. In the case in hand, it is also worth to mention the `possession` of Subject Bungalow it appears, was taken from the three [3] accused persons i.e. [i] Dr. Mumtaz Chandio S/o not known, [ii] Shoaib Chandio S/o not known and [iii] Imtiaz Chandio S/o not known, in compliance of the Interim Order dated 16.08.2011 passed by the Trial Court.
38. On remanding of the case vide order dated 12.10.2010 when, the Cr. I.D. Complaint No.37 of 2010 [Mst. Suriya Kausar Qureshi v. Dr. Mumtaz Chandio & 2 others], came-up before the trial Court then, both the Complainant lady/Respondent No.2 and the Petitioner herein while, presenting their case vehemently denied not only each other`s claim in respect of `ownership` of the `Subject Bungalow` on the basis of original title documents which each of them was holding but also denied each other`s possession over the `Subject Bungalow` as well. The learned trial court i.e. IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, keeping in view the divergent claim/stand of the Complainant lady/Respondent No.2 and the Petitioner herein, directed both the parties to produce before the trial court the original title documents. It appears upon production of original documents and perusal thereof, the trial court ex-facie reached the following conclusion/made an opinion:-
(i) That the complainant lady is the genuine person, holding all the title documents with her;
(ii) The sale deed in favour of Muhammad Siddique is not based on the original documents, but the true copy of the lease deed with the fake Photograph of complainant lady, therefore, the claim of Muhammad Siddique is apparently based absolutely on forged documents, as it transpired that no point of time, the complainant has sold the property to Ghulam Raza on 9.2.2010, as claimed by Muhammad Siddique being purchaser from him by virtue of sale deed on 25.8.2011. It may be emphasized that the sale deed in his favour is based on forged title documents.
iii. The complainant lady is the owner and by forged documents she has been deprived of her property and the proposed accused persons are in collusion to each other.
39. Pursuant to `Remand Order` dated 12.10.2010 and in view of the above not only the Petitioner herein, but also one Ghulam Raza, who allegedly sold out the `Subject Bungalow` to the Petitioner herein vide Sale Deed dated 25.08.2011 have been thus impleaded in the array of Respondents/Accused in Cr. I.D. Complaint No.37 of 2010, as per order dated 06.02.2013 [Annexure `D-2` to the MoP], passed by the learned trial Court i.e. learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. For ready reference the `operative part` of the Order dated 06.02.2013, passed by the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in `CRIMINAL I.D. COMPLAINT NO.37 OF 2010` [Mst. Suriya Kausar Qureshi v. Dr. Mumtaz Chandio & others] is reproduced here-in-below:-
10. In the circumstances, prima-facie the case is made out not only against the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 but also against Muhammad Siddique and Ghulam Murtaza, so they are directed to join and impleaded as accused persons. The complaint, is, therefore, registered and cognizance is taken against them, their attendance is directed to be secured that bailable warrants in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each with surety of like amount. Since the court has taken the cognizance and the complainant lady has sold out the property to one Ameer Ali Shah, therefore, it is further directed complainant will not execute the sale deed in favour of the Ameer Ali Shah, nor to create any third party interest and status quo in respect of the said property will be maintained by all parties concerned till final disposal of the case. Order accordingly. [Underlining is ours]
40. For and in view of all the above, we are of the considered opinion that learned Trial Court should have decided the case on merits and after a proper trial, as also held in number of decisions, particularly, Mansab Ali case [supra] thus, the `impugned order` dated 11.09.2013, passed by learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Cr. I.D. Complaint No.37 of 2010 at the back of the Petitioner herein, is not only illegal but also liable to be set-aside. Thus while, setting aside the `impugned order` dated 11.09.2013, the CRIMINAL I.D. COMPLAINT NO.37 OF 2010, filed by the Complainant lady/Respondent No.2 herein [Mst. Suriya Kausar Qureshi v. Dr. Mumtaz Chandio & others], be deemed as pending before the trial Court. The learned trial Court keeping in view the chequered history of the case, is hereby, directed to proceed further with `CRIMINAL I.D. COMPLAINT NO.37 OF 2010` [Mst. Suriya Kausar Qureshi v. Dr. Mumtaz Chandio & others] and decide the same on merits and strictly in accordance with law, but expeditiously.
41. Needless to mention that the observations made hereinabove, are tentative in nature and shall not cause any prejudice to the case of either party to Cr. I.D. Complaint No.37 of 2010 [Mst. Suriya Kausar Qureshi v. Dr. Mumtaz Chandio & others] at the trial.
42. Petition stands `allowed accordingly` in the above terms. The pending application[s] stand dismissed as having become infructuous.
JUDGE
JUDGE
Hyderabad.
Dated.01.11.2018.
Tufail