1. BIN YAMIN, J.--- Learned counsel for applicants contended that the dispute in between the parties relates to Flat No,A-1/306/1, 3rd Floor, Bait-ul-Hina, Block-18, Gulistan-e-Jouhar, Karachi. That the case of the respondent is that she purchased the aforesaid flat from one Naeem Shamshad, the allottee of the flat in question. That it is her further case that after purchase of the flat, she was put in possession of the flat in question after completion of the title documents. It is further claimed by her that ... ... In August, 2007, the respondent went to Multan in connection with her personal affairs/problems. That in her absence, respondent forcibly occupied the flat and is continuing with his illegal possession. The learned counsel for applicant further submitted that as per claim of the respondent after return from Multan, when she found that her flat has been occupied by the applicants, she filed application before learned 1st. Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Karachi East under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. That the learned Judge has been pleased to take cognizance of the case and issued NBW against the applicants and has further ordered that respondent may be put in possession of the flat in question.
2. ' The grievance of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the order of taking cognizance and subsequent order for putting the respondent in possession of the flat in question has been passed without affording him opportunity of being heard. That it is well-settled law that no person should be condemned unheard. That by ordering that the respondent should be put in possession of the flat in question, the interest of the applicants has seriously been prejudiced. He, therefore submits that the order passed by the learned Ist. Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Karachi East may be set aside/quashed. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the cases of Abdur Rashid Khondkar v. Chandu Matbar and 15 others and the State (PLD 1964 SC 795), Peer Bakhsh v. The State (1979 PCr.LJ 24), Abdul Latif v. Bagga Khan and another (PLD 1996 SC 152), Syed Manzoor Hussain Shah v. Syed Agha Hussain Naqvi and another) 1983 SCMR 775), Messrs Ihsan Yousaf Textile (Pvt.) Ltd., Faisalabad v. Collector of Sales Tax (Adjudication), Faisalabad and 2 others (2003 PTD 1747). Muhammad Muslim and another v. Muhammad Iqbal and 2 others (PLJ 2004 SC 2 )
3. Shah Nazar Khan and 6 others v. Goga Khan and 5 others (2005 YLR 3297), Captain S.M. Aslam v.
4. The State and 2 others (PLD 2006 Karachi 221), Memoona Bano v. S.H.O. PS Al-Falah and others (SBLR 2007 Sindh 1047) and Ashiq Hussain and another v. Athar Sher and 2 others 2008 PCr.LJ 719.
5. ' Learned counsel for respondent has disputed the contentions of learned counsel for applicant. He further submits that the proper procedure for proceedings with the cases of such nature is provided under section 5 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. That in the instant case, on filing of the complaint, the matter was referred to S.H.O., Police Station Shahrah-e-Faisal for holding investigation and submission of the report. That the S.H.O. Concerned conducted investigation and heard the applicant during the course of investigation and thereafter submitted report before the Court, on which the Court has been pleased to pass the order taking cognizance of the case and has further been pleased to direct the concerned police to put respondent in possession of the disputed premises. The learned counsel fully supports the order of the learned trial Court and further submits that the said order is an interim order and has not finally disposed of the matter. He therefore submits that the instant revision application may be dismissed and the order of the learned trial Court may be upheld.
6. ' The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties have been taken into consideration and perused case papers.
7. There is no dispute that the learned 1st. Additional and Sessions Judge, Karachi, East has taken cognizance of the matter and has further ordered that the respondents should be put in possession of the flat in question which means that the applicants be dispossessed from the premises. It is also admitted position that this order of putting the respondent in the premises has been passed without affording opportunity to the applicants of being heard. It is well-settled law that nobody can be condemned un-heard. In this case, as the applicant was in possession of the flat in question, therefore. I am of the opinion that he had the right of being heard by the learned 1st Additional and Sessions Judge, Karachi, East and thereafter the appropriate legal order was required to be passed in this case. As the order of taking possession from the applicants and putting the respondent in possession of the flat in question has been passed without hearing the applicants, therefore, I am of the opinion that this portion of the order is not maintainable and I set aside this order of the learned 1st. Additional and Sessions Judge, Karachi, East regarding putting the respondents in possession of the premises and direct him that before passing any such order, he should provide opportunity of being heard to the applicants and thereafter he can pass any order according to law.
8. ' The Criminal Revision Application stands disposed of. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the case within 30 days.