ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

C.  P.   No.S-550  of  2012

DATE OF HEARING

ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

03.12.2012.

1. For orders on office objections.

2. For Katcha Peshi.

Mr. Habibullah G. Ghouri, advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Abdul Rahman Bhutto, advocate for respondents No.5 & 7.  

Mr. Safdar Ali Ghouri holding brief for Mr. Asif Ali Abdul Razak Soomro, advocate for respondent No.6.

Mr. Inayatullah G. Morio, advocate for respondent No.6.

Mr. Fida Hussain Shah, State Counsel.

                             -------------------------

                                                ----------------------

                   Through the Constitutional Petition petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs :-

a) That this Honourable Court may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to provide the protection to the lives, liberty,family, honour and property of the petitioner and his family members and further direct respondents to provide the details/list of cases against the petitioner and his family members.

b) To restraining the respondents from causing harassment for the petitioner and his family members and further restrain them from unnecessarily and illegally arresting the petitioner and forcing him to go again for private faisla to Haji Munawar Ali Abbasi or any other person and to accept the private faisala announced by respondent No.6 and restrain the respondent No.6 and other respondents from causing interference and disturbance for the petitioner in running his business and managing his property also restraining the respondent NO.7 from interfering the possession of the petitioner in respect of land situated in Deh Sachidino Kalhoro, Taluka Larkana.

c) Award costs of the petition.

d) Any other equitable relief be granted to the petitioner.

                   Notices were issued to the respondents as well as A.A.G.  Comments have been filed by all the respondents.  Official respondents in the comments have stated that allegations levelled against them are false.  Neither they have harassed the petitioner, nor intend to harass him in future and dispute between the parties is over the land.  Regarding protection, official respondents have stated that they will provide every protection to the petitioner if and when approached.  Private respondents No.5 to 7 have also denied the allegations and stated that they have never harassed the petitioner, nor used influence upon the police.  Respondent No.6 has stated that he has no concern whatsoever with the dispute between the actual parties.  Regarding harassment he has stated that no harassment whatsoever has been caused by him.  Learned State Counsel also submits that every protection as provided under the law shall be provided to the petitioner in accordance with the law.

                   In these circumstances, learned advocate for the petitioner does not press this petition more and it is disposed of accordingly.  Parties would be at liberty to agitate their rights regarding pending civil suits before the competent Courts of law.

                                                                                                JUDGE