' IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---Through this petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. The petitioner has challenged the order, dated 12-4-2004 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Naushehra Virkan through which he had appointed a Receiver over the disputed property on the application moved by Muhammad Bashir and the order, dated 24-5-2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gujranwala while dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner.
2. The brief facts of the case are that a decree had been passed in favor of Muhammad Nawaz Hafeez and Muhammad Nasir Hafeez etc. A decree was also passed in favor of one Muhammad Bashir in a suit for specific performance which was filed against Muhammad Nawaz Hafeez and Muhammad Nasir Hafeez etc. On 1-11-1987. The petitioner Muhammad Afzal filed an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Against the said judgment and decree on 1-11-1987 and the petitioner in the said application claimed that he was in possession of the property and the learned Addl.
District Judge vide order, dated 5-5-1991 issued status quo order and after the said order Muhammad Bashir filed an application before the ASP, which was further sent to the Magistrate (respondent No,3), who initiated proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. And vide order, dated 12-4- 2004 appointed the Tehsildar as Superdar/Manager to reap the crop standing on the disputed property. The petitioner filed Criminal Revision against the above-said order, which was dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gujranwala vide order, dated 24-5-2004.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that only the learned Civil Court was competent to regulate the possession of the parties and the order, dated 12-4-2004 passed by the learned Magistrate was illegal and unlawful, which may be quashed. Relies upon Shah Muhammad v. Hal Nawaz and another (PLD 1970 SC 470), Mst. Nasim Akhtar v. The State and others (1996 Pak.
Cr.LJ. 560), Qazi Gran v. Muhammad Jan and another (PLD 1996 SC 541) and Hakim Khan and others v. The State and another (1991 Pak, Cr.L.J 218). Also contends that it was in the knowledge of said Muhammad Bashir and others that the stay order had been passed in favor of the petitioner and the said fact was also concealed that the application under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. Was also filed, which matter came up for hearing before this Court in Civil Revision No, 1023/98 and it was decided on 20-3-2002 so the proceedings initiated under section 145, Cr.P.C. Are liable to be struck down.
4. 3A. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf ofMuhammad Bashir respondent No,1 contends that Bashir Ahmad had purchased the disputed land from some of the owners on the basis of the judgment and decree which was subject-matter of an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. In the year, 1995 through an agreement to sell, which was not complied with and he was constrained to file a suit; that the suit was decreed on 4-5-2001 and on the basis of the said judgment and decree in favor of the respondent mutation was got sanctioned on 30-6-2001, but subsequently the respondent moved an application under section 145, Cr.P.C. To ASP in the year, 2004 on the basis of which the proceedings were initiated under section 145, Cr.P.C.; that the said proceedings were completed and the final order was passed, which has not been challenged by the petitioner and others. It is also contended that the respondent was in possession of the property, but the interference was being made by the petitioner and same was the reason for filing the application. It is lastly contended that only the operation of the order, dated 12-4-2004 was suspended and the proceedings in the application were not stayed.
4. In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the petitioner has brought on record copy of the Jambandi for the years 1988 and 1997 in which the petitioner and other heirs of the deceased have been incorporated as owners of the said property and the said land was in possession of Ghulam Ali and Yaqoob etc. It is also contended that the decree was not executed.
5. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the sale-deed was executed in favor of the decree-holders Muhammad Hafeez etc. On 24-3-1991 before filing of the application under section 12(2) of the C.P.C.
6. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record and the documents produced during arguments. It is an admitted fact that Qamais Khan father of the petitioner was owner of 217 kanals, of land in village Naushehra Virkan and, he died on 12-12- 1976. Muhammad Hafeez father of some of the respondents in the application filed by the petitioner under section 12(2), C.P.C. Claimed that Qamais Khan had sold land to him in the year, 1987, through agreement of sale on the basis of which he filed a suit for specific performance after the death of Qamais Khan and judgment and decree had been passed on 1-11-1987 in favor of Muhammad Hafeez. The petitioner and Mst. Najma Parveen were minors at the time of filing of the suit and a time barred appeal was filed before the learned District Judge which was dismissed due to this reason. Afterwards Muhammad Afzal petitioner filed an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. On 31-3-1991 and case was adjourned for 1-4-1991. Then the order was passed by the learned Addl: District Judgeon 5-4-1991 through which he had issued the notice to the respondents and also passed Status quo order regarding the execution proceedings as per Annex: "C". It is also an admitted fact that respondent Muhammad Bashir was not party in the suit which was decreed and he had purchased some of the land out of the disputed land from some of the legal heirs of Muhammad Hafeez through an agreement to sell on 19-1-1995, who also filed a suit for specific performance against the heirs of Muhammad Hafeez, which was decreed on 4-5-2001 and on the basis of said judgment and decree a mutation was sanctioned in favor of the respondent Muhammad Bashir on 30-6-2003. Then he filed an application in the year, 2004 under section 145, Cr.P.C. And the proceedings were initiated. These facts are undisputed.
7. Now the only question in the present case is that when the learned Addl: District Judge had issued the stay, order in favor of the petitioner and the same was to be maintained in the execution proceedings of the judgment and decree passed on 1-11-1987. This order of the learned Addl: District Judge amounted to suspension of the operation of the impugned judgment and decree, but the legal heirs of Muhammad Hafeez inspite of the pendency of the said application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Had sold the land to the respondent Muharru-nad Bashir, who also filed a suit without mentioning the Status quo order, which was decreed and it was not in the knowledge of the petitioner. Now the .Next question in the present case is that when the Civil Court/Addl: District Judge had issued the Status quo order, whether the Criminal Court/Ilaqa Magistrate was empowered to initiate the proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. This question has been resolved by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Shah Muhammad v. Haq Nawaz and another (PLD 1970 SC 470), Imdad Khan and 7 others v. Syed Muhammad Ilyas and 2 others (1971 SCM R 581), Shah Muhammad v. The State and 5 others (1983 SCM R 1173), Muhammad Amin v. Master Bashir Ahmad and others (2006 SCM R 969) and Mehr Muhammad Sarwar and others v. The State and others (PLD 1985 SC 240), while holding that a Criminal Court does not interfere in the matter of possession of a property where such matter is already being regulated by an order of a Civil Court. I have perused the application moved by the respondent Muhammad Bashir under section 145, Cr.P.C. In which he claimed that he had sown the land but the petitioner and others used to ctit the said crop and cases were also registered against them. He also claimed to have moved to the Revenue Court for entry of his name in the column of Khasra Girdawari. The possibility cannot be ruled out that if C respondent Muhammad Bashir was in possession of the said property he did not choose to file an application under section 145, Cr.P.C. But the same appears to have been filed in order to defeat the proceedings before the Civil Court and flout the Status quo order issued in favorof thepetitioner.
An agreement to sell had been arrived at by the respondent during the pendency of the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. But there was no mention of Status quo issued/granted by the Court of competent jurisdiction. In view of the dictum laid down by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cited case, which is binding on all the authorities and the Courts in Pakistan. I have no hesitation in holding that no proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. Could be initiated in the application of the respondent, which are quashed and this petition stands accepted.
8. Before parting with this judgment it is directed that the learned Addl: District Judge, Gujranwala where the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Is pending will regulate the matter of possession of both the parties, who shall appear before the said Court on 26-4-2007 and the respondent can move an application for becoming a party as he is a necessary and proper party in the proceedings being the subsequent vendee of some of the land. The learned Presiding Officer seized of the matter is directed to dispose of the application under section 12(2) of the 'C.P.C. Within sixty days from the receipt of this order. This Court has not intentionally entered into the controversy of the parties that who is in possession in order to avoid any complication in the appropriate proceedings pending before the learned lower Court. Both the parties in this respect can approach the same Court.