' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.---The petitioner moved an application before the Additional Sessions Judge (South) Karachi under the provisions of sections 3 and 4 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act 2005') for recovery of possession of the property.
Bearing No,C-9-A/1, Punjab Colony (276/14 new number), Karachi, measuring 230-45 sq. Yards. The Additional Sessions Judge, by order dated 1-9-2008, as an interim measure, directed the S.H.O., Police Station Frere, Karachi, to ensure the handing over of the possession of the said property by the respondent to the petitioner. Therefore, the respondent filed Criminal Revision Application No,99 of 2008 which was allowed by a learned single Judge of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, vide impugned order dated 10-11-2008, whereby the S.H.O. Police Station Frere, Karachi, was directed to restore the possession of the properly to the respondent forthwith.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the possession of the property in dispute was taken by the respondent unauthorisedly by committing an act of criminal trespass on 13-1-2003. Therefore, the provisions of the Act, 2005, were correctly applied by the Additional Sessions Judge to restore the possession of the property to the petitioner. Reliance was placed on the case of Rahim Tahir v. Ahmed Jan and 2 others PLD 2007 SC 423.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that a dispute regarding title of the property was already under litigation before the Civil Court. Therefore, the Act of 2005 had no application in such like cases.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the available record with their able assistance. During the course of arguments before the High Court it was admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the date of dispossession was mistakenly indicated to be 13th January, 2003. We find that both the parties had already instituted civil suits with regard to the same property and the matter had, become sub judice well before the Act, 2005 came into force. Therefore, we fail to understand how the provisions of the Act 2005 could be invoked ex-post facto by the petitioner. The reference to the case of Rahim Tahir (supra) was in-apt as it did not lay down the correct law to the extent of retrospective application of the Act, 2005. The making of a law providing for retrospective punishment of a person is specifically prohibited by Article 12 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. There is nothing to indicate that the Act of 2005 was intended to have any retrospective operation. The impugned judgment of the High Court is plainly correct to which no exception can be taken.
' For the foregoing reasons, this petition is dismissed and leave to appeal is declined. Resultantly the proceedings before the Additional Sessions Judge (South) Karachi, under the provisions of the Act 2005, are hereby quashed.