IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Criminal Misc.Application No.S-48 of 2018

Applicants              :               1). Amjad Ali,

                                                2). Ghulam Rasool,

                                                3). Behram Khan @ Arbab Khan Bhutto

                                                            Through Mr.Sohail Abbas Bhutto, Advocate

Respondents           :              Through Mr.Ghulam Asghar Junejo,

Advocate for private respondent

The State through Mr.Sharafuddin Kanhar,

A.P.G.

Date of hearing      :               26.09.2018          

Date of order         :               26.09.2018                   

O R D E R

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant Crl.Misc.Application are that the applicants on conclusion of the trial in a direct complaint filed by the private respondent under the provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act, were acquitted of the charge. While acquitting them, the learned trial Court issued direction to Mukhtiarkar Larkana, to the following effect;

“to make demarcation of the subject property and to submit his compliance report before him within one month”.

2.                The applicants being aggrieved of the above said direction against the Mukhtiarkar Larkana for demarcation of their property has impugned the same before this Court by way of instant Crl.Misc.Applicatoin.

3.                It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the controversy with regard to demarcation of the property being civil in nature could only be resolved by a Civil/Revenue Court having jurisdiction. By contending so, he sought for setting aside of the above said direction of learned trial Judge, as the same according to him has been passed by learned trial Judge in excess of its jurisdiction.

4.                Learned counsel for the private respondent has supported the direction, so issued by learned trial Judge against the Mukhtiarkar Larkana for demarcation of the subject property. By contending so, he sought for dismissal of the instant Crl.Misc.Application.

5.                Learned A.P.G did not support the direction for demarcation of the property by learned trial Judge.

6.                I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

7.                It was a direct complaint which was pending adjudication before learned trial Court, the applicants wherein were acquitted on due trial. If the learned trial Judge was having a feeling that the issue between the parties is only to the extent of demarcation of their property, then he ought to have advised them to have recourse of law through Civil/Revenue Court having jurisdiction for doing the needful, as such was having no jurisdiction to have undertaken such exercise at his own in exercise of his jurisdiction under Criminal Procedure Code.

                   In case of Searle IV Solution (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan 2018 SCMR 1444 (Rel. P-1458), it has been observed by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan that;

“… wherein this Court held that by “jurisdiction” is meant a power to hear and decide a legal controversy between the parties…..

8.                In view of above, directions,  so issued by learned trial Judge against Mukhtiarkar Larkana for demarcation of the subject property, having passed in excess of jurisdiction, could not be sustained and are set aside.

9.                The instant Crl.Misc.Applicatoin is disposed of in above terms with advice to the parties to have recourse of law before the Civil/Revenue Court having jurisdiction for demarcation of their property, if they are advised to do so.

                                                                                               JUDGE