' TARIQ SHAMIM, J.--- Through this petition, the petitioner has challenged the interim order, dated 19-7-2006 passed by the learned trial Court on an application filed by respondent No,1 under section 7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, and the order, dated 7-9-2006 declining to recall its earlier order on the application filed by the petitioner inter alia on the grounds that the address of the petitioner was deliberately wrongly stated in the complaint so that he would not be served with notice; that the learned trial Court acted in haste while deciding the application under section 7 of the Act; that the documents referred to and relied upon by respondent No,1 were fake and fabricated and that the learned trial Court on the application filed by the petitioner ought to have recalled the earlier order, dated 19-7-2006.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel representing respondent No,1 contended that the order challenged through the instant petition was passed under section 7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 which was an interim order and could not be challenged in constitutional jurisdiction of this Court; that the only remedy available to the petitioner was to file an application under section 265- K, Cr.P.C. As the petitioner could not challenge criminal proceedings through a Constitutional petition and that the writ petition had been tiled absolutely on false and baseless allegations, hence the same deserved to be dismissed.
' 2-A. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and the documents placed on the record by both sides.
3. A perusal of the documents placed on the record by respondent No,1 with the reply reveal beyond any doubt that the said respondent was owner in possession of the property in question who had been dispossessed by the petitioner. Even otherwise, the order reveals that valid and lawful reasons have been assigned by the learned lower Court while exercising jurisdiction in the matter. The discretionary order passed by the Courts below cannot be challenged in the exercise of the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court until it can be shown that the same are whimsical, fanciful or arbitrary. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality or infirmity in the orders of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The impugned orders cannot be challenged in the constitutional jurisdiction as the said orders can be validly challenged at the time of filing of appeal against the final judgment. Reliance is placed on the case of Ghulam Hussain and another v. Malik Shhbaz Khan 1985 SCM R 1925.
4. For what has been discussed above, I see no force in this writ petition which is dismissed.