ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Constt: Petition No.S-1006 of 2018.

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

1. For orders on M.A.No.2011/2018

2. For orders on office objection “A”

3. For orders on M.A.No.2012/2018 (E/A)

4. For hearing of main case.

20.12.2018.

                        Mr. Khalid Hussain Mugheri, Advocate for the petitioner.

~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~

The petitioner by way of instant constitutional petition has sought for the following relief;

a).       That this Honourable Court may be pleased to call and direct the respondent No.1 to return the amount of Rs.10,20,000/- (Ten Lacs twenty thousand) to the petitioner for providing the job but he failed to provide the same.

b).       That, this Honourable Court may further be pleased to issue directions to the SHO of A.C.E Kamber-Shahdadkot to conduct enquiry against the respondent No.1 and initiate/register proceeding/FIR against him under intimation to this Honourable Court.

c).       That, this Honourable Court may further be pleased to take legal and penal action against the respondent No.1 for committing mischief and fraud with the petitioner.

d).       The costs of the application may be awarded.

e).       Any other relief to which the petitioner is entitled may kindly be awarded.

                        It is case of the petitioner that the private respondent obtained from him Rs.10,20,000/-, for his appointment as High School Teacher and he accordingly was appointed. Subsequently, the appointment order and pay slip, so issued in his favour, were found to be false and bogus and on being approach, the private respondent has refused to return his money or to provide his job. It was in these circumstances, the petitioner has maintained the instant constitutional petition.

                        On being asked, how the instant constitutional petition is maintainable? It was stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the efficacious remedy could only be granted by this Court. The contention so advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is devoid of any legal force. The petitioner has an alternate remedy to exhaust either under section 22-A & B Cr.PC before learned Ex-officio Justice of Peace, for seeking directions for recording of FIR, or by way of filing a civil suit before the Civil Court having jurisdiction for recovery of his money, if it is due. Indeed, this Court could not extend its jurisdiction over such like matter under the pretext of efficacious remedy. The instant constitutional petition being incompetent is dismissed in limine.

JUDGE