ORDER
SHEET
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH KARACHI
Crl. Rev. Application No.23 of 2024
|
Date
|
Order
with Signature of Judge |
For
hearing of main case.
27.02.2026
M/s. Usman Farooq
and Waqas Advocates for the Applicant.
Mr.
Zahoor Shah, Addl. P.G. Sindh.
------------------------------------
Applicant
Ahmed Hassan is Complainant in I.D. Complaint No.14/2019 and same was brought
on record after verification of registered lease deed by the concerned
Department. He has also moved application under Section 7 of the Illegal
Dispossession Act, 2005 along with I.D. Complainant but the same was dismissed
by learned trial Court vide order dated 12.01.2024.
Learned counsel for the Applicant submits Applicant is
lawful owner of the property; that respondent/accused have approached this
Court and filed Constitution Petition No.D-2276/2018 against Board of Revenue
and claimed subject property on the basis of Goth/Village Abad Scheme and the
same was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 30.04.2025; that claim of
respondent on the basis of Goth Abad Sanad was not
considered by this Court in the aforesaid petition and held that these Sanads are based on bogus and forged documents and the
petition was disposed by imposing fine of Rs.100,000/-; that the case of the
applicant is based on registered lease deed and title documents are not
disputed but learned trial Court did not consider his plea on the ground that
the matter is subjudice before this Court; that after
passing of order in the aforesaid constitution petition, controversy has been
resolved, which establishes his undisputed right over the subject property. He
finally prayed for setting aside the impugned order of learned trial Court and
that the trial Court may be directed to hand over the possession of the subject
property to the applicant/complainant.
Mr. Muhammad Ibrahim Abro,
learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 is called absent without intimation.
Learned A.P.G. submits that directions may be given to
the trial Court to decide this case on merits.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as
learned A.P.G. and perused the material available on record.
In fact, Section 7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005
empowers the Court to restore the possession during pendency of the I.D.
Complaint. In the present case, learned trial Court declined the application under
Section 7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 filed by the complainant on
the ground that the matter is subjudice before this
Court. Learned counsel for the applicant/complainant has provided copy of Order
passed in C.P. No.D-2276/2018, which was dismissed on 30.04.2025 with the
following observations:
“14. Given the foregoing facts – particularly the
willful suppression of the dismissal of two earlier Petitions on the identical
subject (viz. CP NO.D-2469/2009 and CP No.D-1111/2013) – The present Petition
is dismissed with costs of Rs.1,000,000/- (Rupees One Million). While this matter is fit for the
imposition of costs on the Petitioners’ Counsel as well, owing to his failure
to disclose the existence of CP No.D-2469/2009 – despite its express citation
in the title of the order dated 6.4.2011, upon which he himself relied – we are
for now exercising utmost restraint. However, Counsel is hereby warned that any
future attempt to mislead the Court, or to withhold material facts, may result
in more severe consequences, including the imposition of personal costs. The
said amount shall be deposited within twenty- five (25) days from today into
the account of the High Court Judges Library, and proof of deposited shall be
submitted to the Office. In the event of failure to deposit the amount(s)
within the specified time, the Office shall immediately list the matter before
the Court for further orders.
15. The imposition of costs is deemed fiting in this matter, not only to discourage imprudent and
repetitive litigation and safeguard the efficient use of judicial time and
resources, but also to serve as a clear deterrent against attempts to
manipulate the judicial forum in furtherance of unlawful claims over public
land.”
Since
this Court in the aforesaid petition did not endorse the claim of the respondents
and held that claim of respondent is based on bogus and forged Goth Abad Sanads and the petitioner was disposed of by imposing fine
on the petitioners as well as on their counsel. Since controversy has been
resolved by this Court and there is no ambiguity in the matter over the title
documents and, prima facie, complainant is lawful owner of the subject property,
therefore, impugned order is set aside and application filed by the applicant
under Section 7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 is allowed, with
direction to the learned trial Court to hand over the possession of the subject
property to the applicant/complainant within two weeks, in accordance with law.
Instant
criminal revision application stands disposed of in the above terms.
J U D G E