SYED IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---Appellants Muhammad Hussain and Qamar Hussain have assailed the legality of order dated 18-10-2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in Chamber dismissing Writ Petition No,3221 of 2010.
2. Concisely, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that appellants assailed the legality of order dated 6-4-2010 passed by the. Additional Sessions Judge, Multan whereby the private complaint filed by respondent No,2 under sections 3 and 4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 against the appellants was disposed of with the observation that the possession of the disputed house i.e, House No,375 Ward No,6/M Sharif pura Multan be handed to the complainant/respondent No,2.
3. The writ petition was dismissed with the following observations:-- "The learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any material piece of evidence, which may have not been considered by the learned trial Court. Rather he has not referred to the evidence produced by the contesting respondent to prove that she was dispossessed from the disputed house by the petitioners so it is not a case of mis-reading or non- reading of evidence. The learned trial Court after considering the documentary as well as.Oral evidence produced by the contesting respondent passed the impugned judgment. It is established on the record that the petitioners were residing at Rawalpindi, whereas the deceased Ilam Din lived at Multan. The sale deed executed by him in favour of his sisters on 12-6-2004 was never challenged till his death by the petitioners. So, the respondent Majeedan and Firdous found by the learned trial Court on the basis of sale deeds Exh.P/19 and Exh.P/C to be owners of the said property. The possession follows the title.. 'The petitioners. A had absolutely no right to dispossess them from the disputed property. As regards the civil suit filed by the petitioners, they could not be given benefit of their own wrong and there was no justification to stop the proceedings till the disposal of the said civil suit, The civil suit normally takes decades to conclude and if a criminal offence has been committed by any individual and he himself filed a civil suit, the aggrieved person cannot be deprived of the legal remedy available to him on criminal side. It was observed in "Rafique Bibi v. Muhammad Sharif and another (2006 SCMR 512) that no bar existed to initiate both the proceedings i.e, civil and criminal simultaneously." To maintain a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 against stranger cannot be thrown away merely because the said individual who dispossessed some one from the property in his lawful possession was not member of .Qabza group"., In the instant case, the petitioners had absolutely no concern with the said property, which had already been transferred by their father in his lifetime about four years before his death through registered sale deeds, which had the presumption of truth unless rebutted by strong evidence. Being sons of the deceased they could not be given license to dispossess the lawful owners of the property merely due to the fact that the said properly previously belonged to their father with whom they had no cordial relations and had rather neglected him. The petitioners were neither co owners nor co-sharers of the said property so the case-law on this point referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not applicable in the instant case."
' Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have filed this Intra Court Appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the appellants have filed a suit for declaration in respect of registered sale deed regarding the property in dispute and it is well recognized principle of law that any registered document itself is not proof of its execution and in the presence of civil dispute, no complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act is maintainable; that the appellants have inherited the property in dispute and the registered sale deed is forged and fictitious one; that the appellants have inherited the disputed property and as such are not the "property grabbers" or "land mafia"; that the learned trial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the private complaint filed by respondent No,2 and the learned Single Judge in Chamber has not considered this aspect of the case. Relies on cases titled "Bashir v. Addl. Sessions Judge, Faisalabad and 4 others (PLD 2010 Supreme Court 661)", "Pakistan Oilfield Ltd. Rawalpindi v. Province .Of Punjab and others (2010 SCM R 328, [Supreme Court of Pakistan] "Nasrullah and others v. The State (2011 SCM R 549 (Supreme Court of Pakistani)", Waqar, Ali and others v. The State through Prosecutor General/Advocate General Peshawar and others (PLD 2010 Supreme Court 181)", "Muhammad Fazal and others v. Saeedullah Khan and others (2011 SCM R 1137) (Supreme Court. Of Pakistan))" and "Zahoor. Ahmad and 5 others v. The State and 3 others (PLD 2007 Supreme Court 231)".
5. On the other hand learned A.A.G. Has opposed this petition and has raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this Intra Court Appeal. The learned counsel for respondent No,2 has also raised the objection and maintained that respondent No,2 was lawful owner in possession of the disputed property and the appellants had no concern whatsoever with the same; that she along with her sister namely Firdous purchased the disputed land from their father and are exclusive owners in possession of the same. Relies on case titled "Rahim Tahir v. Ahmed Jan and 2 others (PLD 2007 Supreme Court 423) [Appellate Jurisdiction]".
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, learned A.A.G. For the State and have also perused the record.
7. Respondent. No,2 Mst. Majeedan Mai filed a private complaint under Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 against the appellants alleging her illegal dispossession from the house owned by her and her sister namely Mst. Firdous. Learned trial Court, after recording the evidence and hearing the parties, directed that the possession of the house in question be restored to respondent No 2. The proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 are of the criminal nature and are regulated in accordance with the provisions of Code of Criminal - Procedure in the light of section 9 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 which is as under:- "Unless otherwise provided in this. Act, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (V of 1898), shall apply to proceedings under this Act."
' However, the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 does- not contain any provision with regard to the right of appeal. It is alleged by the learned counsel for respondent No,2 that the right of appeal and revision exists because in fact they are in continuation of "proceedings in. The trial".
8. The meaning of word "proceedings" in Black's Law Dictionary Eighth Edition by Bryan A. Garner at its page 1241, quoted below for ready reference: "(1) ..............
(2)
(3) ..........
(4) The business conducted by Court or other official body; a hearing
(5) Proceeding is a word much used to express- the business done in Courts. A proceeding in Court is an act done by the authority or direction of the Court, express or implied. It is more comprehensive than the word 'action', but it may include the pleadings and judgment. As applied to actions, the term 'proceeding' may include ----(1) the institution of the action; (2) the appearance of the defendant; (3) all ancillary or provisional steps, such as arrest, attachment of property, garnishment, injunction, writ of ne exeat; (4) the pleadings; (5) the taking of testimony before trial; (6) all motions made in the action (7) the trial; (8) the judgment f- (9) the execution;
(10) proceedings supplementary to execution, in code practice,' (11) the taking of the appeal or writ of error; (12) the remittitur or sending back of the record to the lower. Court from the appellant or 'reviewing Court; (13) the enforcement of the judgment, or a new trial, as may be directed by the Court of last resort. "Edwin E Bryant.The law of pleading under the Codes of Civil Procedure 3-4 (2d ed, 1899)."
The above mentioned dictionary meaning ()Nile word "proceedings includes appeal.
9. It is correct that the right of appeal and right of revision are the creation of statute but is also true that when the ordinary courts of the country are competent to decide the disputed legal rights then ordinary. Rules of Procedure are applicable to such Courts and appeal lies if it is allowed under the prevailing Rules of procedure notwithstanding that the legal rights had arisen under special statute, which does not confer right of appeal. This principle has been clearly referred to by the Hon'ble Privy Council in a Full Bench judgment delivered as earlier as in 1947, in the case titled R.M. A. RA. Adiakappa Chettiar and another v. R. Chandrasekhara Thevar reported in PLD 1947 PC
279. Relevant extract is quoted below:-- "The true rule is that where a legal right is in dispute and the ordinary Courts of the country are seized of such dispute the. Courts are governed by the ordinary rules of procedure applicable thereto and an appeal lies, if authorized by such rules, notwithstanding that the legal right claimed arises under a special statute which does not in terms confer a right of appeal. See Secretary of State v. Chelikani Rama Rao. (43 IA 192) and Hem Singh v. Basant Das. (63 IA 180)".
10. The Sessions Court exercising the power under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 is a normal Court created under the general law and there is no manifestation in the Illegal Dispossession. Act, 2005 that the Court under the said Act shall act as a Special Court and the E provisions of Criminal Procedure Code are applicable while deciding the said complaint., The normal rules and general law in the shape of Code of Criminal Procedure are applicable including the right of appeal and revision in consonance with the relevant principle of law referred in Adaikappa's case PLD 1947 PC 279.
11. In almost all the Special Laws the right of appeal and revision has been provided but in the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 no such right has been specifically provided. It is clear from the bare reading of F the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 that the legislature has intentionally withheld the provision of appeal while inserting section 9 relating to the applicability of the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure to the proceedings to be conducted under the said Act wherein the remedy of appeal and revision has been provided for the redress of aggrieved person.
12. Under section. 9 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, .2005 all the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure are applicable to the proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act unless barred by any of its own provision. Therefore,. We are of the considered view, that the right of appeal and revision exists against .The orders passed by the Court under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 within the framework provided under Section 9 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005.
13. Under section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 an appeal shall he to a Bench of two or more Judges of a High Court from a decree passed or final order made by a single Judge of that Court in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction provided that the appeal referred to in this subsection shall not be available or competent if the application brought before the High Court under Article 199 arises out of any proceedings in which the law applicable, provided for at least one appeal or one revision or one review to any Court, Tribunal or authority against the original order. As discussed above, the right of appeal is available against the order passed by the learned trial Court under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, therefore, the Intra Court Appeal is incompetent.
14. The house in question was allegedly sold by father of the appellants in favour of respondent No,2 Mst. Majeedan and her sister Mst. Firdous vide sale-deed No,6323 dated 12-6-2004. Father of the appellants remained alive till 30-3-2008 and the possession of the house in question .Was given to respondent No,2 while the appellants were residing at Rawalpindi and their father had disassociated them being disobedient sons. The appellants were neither co-owners nor co-sharers of the property in dispute who exercising force, have illegally dispossessed respondent No,2 from the said house. The learned Single Judge in Chamber, after carefully perusing the record, concluded that the learned trial Court had rightly made an order for the restoration of, the possession to respondent No,2. The appellants have failed to point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order which is in accordance with the law and is liable to be maintained.
In these circumstances, the Intra Court Appeal in hand is I without any merits and the same stands dismissed.