IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH
AT LARKANA
Criminal R.A.S-103of 2021: Imdad Ali Junejo vs.
Ist A.D.J, Mehar &Others
For the Applicant : Mr. Ghayoor Abbas Shahani, Advocate
Date of hearing : 14.02.2022.
Date of order : 14.02.2022
ORDER
Agha Faisal, J.(1). Over ruled. (2). Granted; subject to all just exceptions. (3.). The applicant has assailed the Order dated 09.10.2021, whereby the Court of learned Ist Additional District Judge, Mehar had dismissed the complaint under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 (“Act”).
2. The impugned order observed that the present applicant claimed to have been dispossessed from the subject land on 02.05.2021 at 05:00 p.m., however, on the contrary as per report of Mukhtiarkar, Land Revenue, Mehar, the proposed accused are in possession of the subject land since last 20 years. The impugned order also observed that report of the S.H.O, P.S. Radhan also supported the report of the Mukhtiarkar, Land Revenue, Mehar. The learned trial Court after analyzing the record there before concluded that the complainant had not been dispossessed by the proposed accused from the subject land, therefore, no case was made out under the Act.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant refers the pending civil litigation between the parties and states that the impugned order has not taken the same into consideration in its proper perspective.
4. Heard and perused. It is clear that the issue of title is extraneous to the issue of illegal dispossession, therefore, the reference to civil litigation has been rightly construed by the learned trial Court. There is no cavil articulated to the procedure adopted by the learned trial Court and the conclusion drawn has not been demonstrated to suffer from any infirmity.
5. This court has considered the impugned order and is of the view that the findings arrived at are well reasoned and borne from the record there before, to which no cavil has been articulated by the applicant's counsel. The order prima facie demonstrates appreciation of the record / evidence and also shows that ample opportunity was provided to the concerned to state their case. Learned counsel has remained unable to identify any manifest infirmity in the impugned order, meriting interference.
6. It is trite law[1] that where the fora of subordinate jurisdiction had exercised its discretion in one way and that discretion had been judicially exercised on sound principles the supervisory forum would not interfere with that discretion, unless same was contrary to law or usage having the force of law.
7. In view of the foregoing, this Criminal Revision Application is dismissed in limine.
JUDGE
[1]Per Faqir Muhammad Khokhar J. in NaheedNusrat Hashmi vs. Secretary Education (Elementary) Punjab reported as PLD 2006 Supreme Court 1124; Naseer Ahmed Siddiqui vs. Aftab Alam reported as PLD 2013 Supreme Court 323.