IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal Revision Application No.42
of 2025
|
DATE |
ORDER WITH
SIGNATUREs OF JUDGEs |
1.
For orders on M.A. No.2681/2025
(U/A)
2.
For orders on M.A. No.2682/2025
(Exp/A)
3. For
hearing of main case
------------------------------------------
21.02.2025
Mr. Aijaz Farooq, advocate for
applicant
Mr. Fayyaz Hussain, A.P.G.
Mst. Nighat Sultana, respondent No.1
------------------------------------
SHAMSUDDIN ABBASI,
J.—Applicant has impugned
order dated 13.02.2025, whereby learned IV Additional District Judge, Karachi
East has taken cognizance in Criminal Complaint No.145/2024 against the
applicant under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005.
2. Learned
counsel for applicant submits that the impugned order passed by learned trial
Court is erroneous, bad in law and without jurisdiction, therefore, the same is
liable to be set aside; that there is civil dispute between the parties and the
respondent tried to convert the civil litigation into criminal proceedings;
that there is no provision for amendment in a criminal case, therefore, the
impugned order is illegal. He finally prayed for dismissal of ID Complaint
filed by respondent No.1 and to set aside the impugned order.
3. On the
other hand, respondent No.1 Mst. Nighat Sultana voluntarily appeared, waived
notice and filed statement along with certain documents, which are taken on
record. She submits that she is lawful owner of residential properties
constructed on Plots Nos.523 and 524, admeasuring 120 square yards each,
situated in Area-I, Sector 35-D, Korangi, Karachi and filed Civil Suit
No.1390/2019, which was decided by learned III Senior Civil Judge, Karachi in
her favour and in execution proceedings possession of property was handed over
by defendant Waseem Ahmed. She further submits that she is a doctor by
profession and applicant in connivance of defendant Muhammad Waseem again
occupied the houses illegally and unlawfully, therefore, she filed Criminal
Complaint No.145/2024 against the applicant, which was brought on record by
learned trial Court by taking cognizance against the applicant.
4.
Learned A.P.G., who
is also present in Court in other cases waives notice and supported the
impugned order passed by learned trial Court in I.D. Complaint No145/2024.
5.
Heard learned
counsel for the applicant, respondent No.1 Mst. Nighat Sultana and learned
A.P.G. and perused the material available on record.
6.
It is matter of
record that respondent No.1 is lawful owner of Houses, constructed on Plots Nos.523
and 524, admeasuring 120 square yards each, situated in Area-I, Sector 35-D,
Korangi, Karachi, she filed Civil Suit No.1390/2019 against Syed Asif and
Muhammad Waseem, which was decreed in her favour through Civil Execution
Application No.10/2020. I have gone through the impugned order, relevant
portion of the impugned is reproduced as under:
“3. I have considered the respective
submissions and carefully examined the entire case proceedings. Admittedly,
complainant Mst. Nighat Sultana had obtained the possession of two houses
bearing No.523 & 524 equally measuring 120 square yards, Sector 35/D,
Korangi Karachi in Civil Execution Application No.10/2020 arising out of Civil
Suit No.1390/2019 through Court bailiff. At later stage, both houses had
illegally been occupied by accused persons namely Muhammad Waseem and Muhammad
Asif. So far house No.524 is concerned, accused Muhammad Waseem has accepted
his guilt and vacated the said house and handed over the same to complainant.
So far the case in hand is concerned, in fact in memo of complaint, the
complainant has mentioned therein the numbers of both houses at some places and
only in application u/s 7 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 only house No.524
is mentioned. In this regard, while I have gone through the record, which
reflects that police report has been received in respect of house No.523, this
Court has taken cognizance in respect of house No.523 and charge against
accused has been framed in respect of said house, therefore, it stands
established that the entire case governed in respect of house No.523 which is
admittedly the subject property of this case. Accordingly, in the larger
interest of justice, the memo of complaint contained both house numbers, thus,
for the purpose of disposal of the case the memo of complaint of instant ID
No.145/2024 shall be deemed to be House No.523. However, the application u/s 7
of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 specifically contains wrong property
number though it was bona fide typographical error, thus the complainant is at
liberty to file fresh application with correct number.”
7.
Perusal of record
reveals that the respondent got possession of subject property in the execution
proceedings but the applicant/accused forcibly dispossessed the respondent,
which attracts the provisions of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. I do not
find any illegality or irregularity; question of misreading and non-reading of
evidence/material does not arise warranting no interference by this Court. The
matter requires further probe by leading evidence by both the parties before
the trial Court concerned. Therefore, instant criminal revision application is
dismissed.
J
U D G E
Gulsher/PS