1. ' AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J.--- Granted subject to all just exceptions.
2. Through this criminal revision application the applicant has impugned the order, dated 19-4- 2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karachi (West), inter alia, on the ground that the applicant was illegally dispossessed by the respondent No,1 from the premises in question.
2. ' The applicant claims that he made a complaint before the learned Sessions Judge, Karachi (West), under the provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 2005") which complaint was dismissed in limine on the police report. The learned counsel submits that the impugned order is bad in law and the learned Sessions Judge has committed an error by dismissing the complaint in limine without examining the complainant and his witnesses. He further submits that the case of the applicant falls within the provisions of the Act of 2005 and the observation in the competent Civil Court for redressal of grievance was erroneous. The learned counsel further submits that the power of attorney executed by the applicant pertained to Plot No,875, which was tampered by the respondent No,1 by substituting Plot No,875 with figure 872 and on the basis of such tampered document, the possession has been taken by the respondent No,1 through some other person. The learned counsel for the State supports the impugned order.
3. ' I have heard the learned counsel and have perused the record. The scope of the Act of 2005 is limited and the Court exercising powers under section 3 is not competent to give any finding in regard to the authenticity of a document. The findings pursuant to the Act of 2005 are only confined to illegal dispossession. In the present case the respondent No,1 claims possession on the basis of alleged tampered documents. The learned Sessions Judge, Karachi (West) was justified in observing that he was not competent to give a finding in regard to tampering of the document as the nature of jurisdiction vested with him under the provision of Act of 2005 and is that of criminal jurisdiction. No Criminal Court, in law, can give a declaration and or finding in regard to the validity of a document whether it was tampered or forged.
4. ' Under these circumstances, I am of the considered view that the applicant can only avail his remedy in such a case by approaching a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction and the respondent No,1 who is in possession of the premises claims possession on the basis of certain documents, which exclude jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge under the Act of 2005.
5. ' For the foregoing reasons this criminal revision application is dismissed in limine with listed applications.