IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Criminal Misc.Application No.S-250 of 2017

Applicants                    :                  1). Abdul Ahad

                                                            2). Abdul Salam

                                                            3). Abdul Hafeez

                                                            All sons of late Ghulam Qayoom Soomro

Through Mr.Syed Tahir Abbas Shah, Advocate

Respondents             : Through  Mr.Saleem Raza Jakhar, Advocate

for private respondent,

                     The State through Mr.Raja Imtiaz Ali Solangi

A.P.G.

Date of hearing         :                    08.10.2018             

Date of order             :                    08.10.2018                         

O R D E R

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- The private respondent by of making an application before learned Sessions Judge, Jacobabad, sought for determination of her share in inheritance in property allegedly left by her father-in-law Haji Muhammad Siddique Soomro. It was disposed of by learned Sessions Judge, Jacobabad, vide his order dated 22.01.2015, the operative whereof reads as under;

“Since, the controversy between the parties is regarding inheritance from property left by one Ghulam Qayoom Soomro, therefore, Mukhtiar (Revenue), Jacobabad is directed to conduct enquiry into the matter and if the applicant and her children are found to be true legal heirs of deceased Abdul Qayoom Soomro, then mutate the property in accordance with law under intimation to this Court”.

2.                    The applicants being aggrieved of above said order of learned Sessions Judge, Jacobabad, have impugned the same before this Court, which is objected by private respondent by filing her objections, inter-alia stating therein that the instant application is filed by the applicants only to usurp her share in the property left by her father-in-law Muhammad Siddiq.

3.                    It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the learned Sessions Judge, Jacobabad, was having no authority to have determined the civil rights of the parties by exercising his jurisdiction on Misc.Applicatoin. By contending so, he sought for setting aside of the impugned order.

4.                    Learned A.P.G did not support the impugned order.

5.                    None has appeared on behalf of the private respondent to advance any argument.   

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

7.                    If for the sake of arguments, it is believed that the private respondent was having right of share in inheritance of the property, left by her father-in-law Muhammad Siddiq, then she was having remedy to establish such right under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, by way of filing a civil suit under section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code before the Civil Court having jurisdiction. The learned Sessions Judge, Jacobabad, apparently was having no jurisdiction under Criminal Procedure Code, to have entertained and decided a Misc.Applicatoin, which was involving the determination of civil rights of the parties in summarily way. Order impugned apparently is passed in excess of jurisdiction. It is made clear here  that the “jurisdiction” is meant a power to hear and decide a legal controversy between the parties which could be vested by the law alone and absence of such power would be sufficient to render such order as “without jurisdiction”.

8.                    In case of Searle IV Solution (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan 2018 SCMR 1444 (Rel. P-1458), it has been held 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…..

9.                    In view of above, the impugned order could not be sustained, it is set aside.

10.                  The instant Crl.Misc.Application is disposed of accordingly.

JUDGE

..