IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, AT KARACHI

Criminal Appeal No. 495 of 2020

Appellant: Nemo for Painda Khan

The State: Through Mr. Khadim Hussain, Additional Prosecutor General Sindh

Respondents: Nemo

Date of hearing: 25.10.2022

Date of judgment: 25.10.2022

J U D G M E N T

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J- The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant appeal are that during pendency of a direct complaint filed under the provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act, Mst. Jannat Bibi filed an application for initiating contempt proceedings against the contemnors for having failed to comply with the order dated 16.02.2012, passed by learned III-Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi West, whereby they were directed to handover the possession of subject property to her. Despite service of notice on that application, the contemnors put no appearance and instead of them, the appellant put appearance before learned trial Court with an assertion that he has been residing over subject property since 1997 having purchased the same from one Mikaeel. His such assertion was turned down by learned trial Court vide order dated 20.10.2020, whereby SHO PS Saeedabad was directed to comply with the above said order, which is impugned by the appellant before this Court by way of instant appeal.

2. Since long, none is putting appearance on behalf of the appellant, therefore, it was decided that the instant appeal to be disposed of on merits after providing chance of hearing to learned Addl. P.G for the state; who has supported the impugned order.

3. The appellant obviously has no right over the subject property, if for the sake of arguments, it is believed that he has got some right over the subject property, then he has to establish the same in accordance with law by approaching the Civil Court having jurisdiction. In absence of such exercise, the appellant could not be permitted to defeat a lawful order of the learned trial Court by claiming to be in possession of the subject property having purchased the same from someone else. No illegality otherwise is noticed in the impugned order, which may justify this Court to make interference with the same, consequently, the instant appeal fails and it is dismissed according.

JUDGE