' SYED MUHAMMAD FAROOQ SHAH, J.---Heard the learned counsel and perused the record.
2. Opponent/accused being farmers (Harees) filed an application to release the disputed amount of the produce of the land deposited with the accountant of the court. In impugned order dated 11- 7-2012 the learned Trial Court observed that applicants being `harees' and the complainant being landlord are entitled to the extent of their respective share in the produce, therefore, entire amount cannot be released either to complainant or to the accused persons, as the matter is of Redemption of account and the civil court is competent to resolve and settle such controversy.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned order the captioned criminal revision application has been preferred by the applicant.
3. Relevant succinct facts leading to the filing of this case are that espondent No,2 filed a complaint under sections 3 and 5 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, alleging therein that he is owner of agriculture land bearing survey Nos.284(37 ghuntas), 285(1-13), 104(3-26), 105(3-26), 106(2-4) and 107(2-2-04) situated in Deh Gujo, Taluka and District Tando Allahyar. He alleged that the accused persons (12 persons named in the complaint) illegally dispossessed complainant from the land and occupied the same without lawful justification. Complainant/respondent No,2 prayed to initiate criminal proceedings against them, property be restored to him and he may be awarded compensation. By an order dated 19-12-2011. Complaint No,11 of 2010, filed by respondent No,2 herein was dismissed and all the accused were acquitted from the charges of illegal occupation of the disputed land. Admittedly no appeal has been preferred against the mentioned judgment pronounced on 19-12-2011 which has attained finality. Thereafter, subsequent order dated July 11, 2012 passed on application filed on behalf of opponents has been challenged by accused persons who is impugned before this court. The instant criminal revision application has been filed by the applicant leaving aside ten (10) other accused and set forth many facts and grounds. After hearing the parties the learned Trial Court observed in penultimate para as under:-- "In the present case the complainant has failed to appear for his evidence, as such complaint was dismissed for want of evidence. No compromise application or draft of compromise, whereby the matter was resolved amicably has been filed before this Court, but on the contrary during the course of arguments A learned counsel for accused pleaded that the complainant with the help of police and weapons has illegally dispossessed the accused persons and such petition is pending before honourable High Court, whereby DSP Siraj Lashari was appointed to hold inquiry and such inquiry report has been submitted, the same is in favour of accused persons. On account of compromise no documentary proof has been submitted or annexed with the objections. During query learned counsel for accused has submitted that accused persons were Hari over the disputed land for the last 60/70 years and in my view being the Hari the accused persons and the complainant both are entitled to the extent of their respective share in the produce. Here in the present case, the amount deposited with the accountant is the Sale Price of the produce, therefore, the entire amount cannot be released either to complainant or the accused persons, as such the matter is of Rendition of account and Civil Court is competent to resolve such controversy. The case-law relied upon is in respect of restoration of possession granted to the complainant on his application under section 7 of Illegal Dispossession Act, therefore, the same is not helpful in this case. For the foregoing reasons, the application in hand stand disposed. However, the accused are at liberty to approach the Civil Court to redress their grievance."
The observation made by the learned Trial Court. Reproduced above, transpires that a writ petition is also pending for adjudication before this court and such fact has not been denied by both the learned counsel and since the disputed land was owned by respondent No,2, where allegedly applicant Dhani Bux along with others were farmers, therefore, as for respective share in the produce is concerned, the learned Trial Court while observing that the amount deposited with the Accountant was sale price of the produce, therefore, the entire amount cannot be released either to complainant or to the accused persons, as such the matter is of redemption of accounts and civil court is competent to resolve such controversy, therefore, did not act illegally. Learned Trial Court has rightly observed in respect of the case-law relied upon in respect of restoration of possession granted to complainant on his application under section 7 of Illegal Dispossession Act that the same were not helpful in that case.
' Mr. Sarki elaborated his lengthy arguments but since the question involved here is with regard to the impugned order as to whether learned Trial Court by announcing the impugned order has committed any illegality, gross irregularity or infirmity? Apparently, the learned counsel for one of the applicant/accused Dhani Bux did not point out any ambiguity or infirmity in the impugned order, particularly the Trial Court has observed that the accounts may be settled by filing a proper suit. The application is therefore, having no merits. I, therefore, by maintaining the impugned order dated July 11, 2012 dismiss the captioned application.