'MUHAMMAD ANWAARUL HAQ, J.---Through this petitions the petitioner assails order dated 18-8- 2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore.
2. Very briefly the facts relevant to disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioners purchased a plot from one Muhammad Akram and according to him he took the possession of said plot on 18- 8-2004 from Khasra No,3848/3707/665 measuring 25 Marlas. Statedly respondent No, 2 purchased a plot in Khasra No,3852 on 28-9-2009 and according to the petitioner, respondent No, 2 claimed
3. The petitioner filed a suit against respondent No,2 on 4-12-2008 whereas respondent No,2 filed a complaint under section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 regarding the same property against the petitioner and others. Thereafter the petitioner after joining proceedings before learned Additional Sessions Judge, filed an application under section 265-K, Cr. P . C . Which was dismissed vide impugned order above mentioned.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the matter is purely of civil nature and suit filed by the petitioner being already pending.Bars the proceedings under section 3 of illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. Further contends that the dispute between the parties should have been resolved by the Civil Court and the complaint under section 3 of the Act supra is not maintainable; that the petitioner and his co-accused have no history of being members of any land Mafia and are not at all land grabbers as defined in the Illegal Dispossession Act and that pendency of complaint is just an abuse of process of Court.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No,2 contends that impugned order dated 18-8-2009 being interlocutory in nature cannot be questioned in the constitution petition before this Court; that after scanning evidence produced by the complainant the accused were summoned to face the trial and there is strong and cogent evidence available against them that is yet to be recorded. He further contends that a Court can only decide a dispute after recording of evidence especially when matter relates to factual controversy between the parties.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for respondent No,2 and have also gone through the record available on the file.
7. No doubt section 265-K, Cr.P.C. Is meant to prevent the abuse of process of law and this power can be exercised at any stage of the trial/proceedings if the Court considers that there is no probability of the accused being convicted of any offence but in this case when the trial Court had summoned the accused in the complaint after considering the evidence on record then it seems appropriate that the dispute between the parties should have been decided on merits after recording of B evidence. The Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 is a special law, at this stage I am not inclined to circumvent the process of special law promulgated for a particular purpose when otherwise the impugned order is not a final order and there is plethora of judgments on the subject that in the matters of factual controversy between the parties, High Court under its constitutional jurisdiction interferes only in extraordinary circumstances. The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out any extraordinary circumstance, any jurisdictional error or illegal defect in the impugned order.
8. In view of the above this petition being devoid of any force, stands dismissed.