The facts of the case which needs to be stated for the disposal of this petition are that Respondent No, 1 filed a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 dated 18.04.2013 slating therein that on 28.03.2013 the petitioner (herein) along with other ten unknown persons forcibly entered in his property at 4:30 p.m and illegally dispossessed him. On 16.08.2013 the petitioner was summoned to face trial by the learned trial Court and also address arguments on an application under Section 7 of the illegal Dispossession Act pending adjudication.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 18.04.2013 whereby the statement of the complainant was recorded and a report was called for from the SHO concerned and the order dated 16.08.2013 whereby the petitioner was summoned to face trial and address arguments on an application under Section 7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act pending adjudication is liable to be set aside being illegal. The dispute between the parties is essentially of a civil nature. The petitioner has never committed any offence under the Illegal Dispossession Act, hence could not have been summoned to face trial by the trial Court. Miscarriage of justice of justice would be occasioned in case the order of the trial Court dated 18.04.2013 whereby the complaint filed by Respondent No, 1 was registered and the order dated 16.08.2013 whereby the petitioner was summoned to face trial and address arguments on an application under Section 7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, pending adjudication is not declared illegal and set aside by this Court.
3. After hearing the arguments which have been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the limine stage and going through the documents appended with this petition it is clear that the trial Court has summoned the petitioner to face trial after recording the cursory statement of the complainant and two witnesses namely Zaka. Ullah and Zaki Ahmad who deposed in line with the contents of the complaint filed under the Illegal Dispossession Act. The mailer was referred to the SHO concerned for investigation who has also reported that the petitioner Syed Iqbal Haider along with other accused illegally dispossessed the complainant from the disputed land. After holding that prima facie a case has been made out against the petitioner he has been summoned to face trial. It is trite that the pros and cons of the case and the quality of the evidence would be evaluated by the trial Court during the course of trial. It would not be fit and proper for this Court to evaluate the quality of the evidence and the material examined by the learned trial Court while summoning the accused to face trial while exercising its extra ordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973.
An order to summon the accused to face trial, even otherwise would not be amenable to interference in writ jurisdiction in terms of law laid down by the this Court in Zahoor Ahmad & 5 others Vs. The State & 3 others PLD 2007 Lahore 231 and subsequently endorsed by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in Bashir Ahmad Vs. Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad and 4 others PLD 2010 Supreme Court 661. Needless to say that the petitioner would at be liberty to plead his case and profess his innocence before the trial Court.
4. For what has been stated above, this petition being without -any merit stands dismissed in limine.