1. ' HASSAN FEROZE, J.---By this common judgment I would like to decide the captioned Criminal Revision Applications, being outcome of Criminal Complaint No.68/2012 dated 19-7-2012, under sections 3/4 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 (XI of 2005) by Viral Daroga in his capacity as applicant against Feroze Golawala, Rustom Bhurikhan and Faramerz Khambatta as respondents and through Criminal Revision Application No.198 of 2012 (Feroz Golawala and two others v. Viraf Daroga and two others applicants) have impugned order dated 10-9-2012, as passed by learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge Karachi South on the application of respondent No. 1 under sections 3 and 4 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 whereby the complaint was admitted to regular file and B.Ws. Against the respondents/accused Nos.1 to 3, each in the sum of Rs.50,000 were ordered to be issued, whereas in Criminal Revision Application No. 32 of 2013 order dated 21-2-2013 as passed by learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge Karachi East on the application under section 7 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 to which was moved for handing over of possession of Bungalow No.29 situated in Karachi Parsi Cooperative Housing Society, M.A. Jinnah Road, Karachi, was dismissed and the respective applicants being aggrieved and dissatisfied preferred the captioned revision applications in this court.
2. ' Precisely it was on 19-7-2012 that applicant Viraf Daroga filed the application/complaint under sections 3 and 4 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 against Feroze Golawala, Rustom Bhurikhan and Faramerz Khambatta, stating therein that he is absolute and lawful owner of a house constructed on Plot No.29 situated in Parsi Colony, Off: M.A. Jinnah Road, Karachi (hereinafter referred to as Said Property) to which was duly mutated in his name in the Revenue Record maintained by the Mukhtiarkar, Jamshed Quarters, Karachi West and that he is presently residing in House No.A-29, Avari Colony, Mehmoodabad, Karachi since last two years and the said property was lying vacant and he in the month of June, 2012 let-out the Said Property to his tenant namely Imran Haider whom the possession was handed over in the month of June, 2012. Said tenant on 12-7-2012 at about 8-00 p.m. Along with his household articles, furniture etc. When opened the main door of the said Property for occupying the property in question in his capacity as tenant the accused persons along with their hirelings about 20 in number duly armed with weapons entered into the said Property and dispossessed him and grabbed the said Property without any lawful authority and justification, such act was otherwise without lawful authority, title and justification as such act of the respondents/accused attracts to the provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. According to applicant he is paying electricity, gas and water bills to the concerned agencies with Electricity.
3. Consumer Nos. AL 069789, AL 00679 and Sui Gas connection having Customer No.1908020000 and another Sui Gas Connection bearing No. 8118020000. He is possessing passport bearing No.032205 issued by the Ministry of Interior having address of the Said Property. He lodged complaint with the Soldier Bazar Police regarding such illegal dispossession by the hands of the above-named persons form the said Property on 13-7- 2012 which was duly acknowledged at the police station but no action was initiated against the respondents/accused persons. Applicant prayed that in the circumstances he is entitled for restoration of possession as well as attachment of said Property and the accused persons are liable to be tried for having committed offence under the illegal Dispossession Act. The prayer clause of the complaint so filed reads:-- 'It is, therefore, prayed on behalf of the applicant above-named that this honourable Court may be pleased to pass following order in favour of the applicant and against the accused persons:- "A. To direct the SHO, Soldier Bazar to arrest the accused persons and to investigate the matter and submit his report before this honourable Court.
4. B. To attach and hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the said Property i.e. Plot No.29 situated at Parsi Colony, Off: M.A. Jinnah Road, Karachi till the final decision of the instant application. C. To award punishment to the accused persons in terms of section 3(2) of the Illegal Dispossession Act IX of 2005 and the applicant be awarded compensation in terms of section 544-A of the Code.
5. D. To pass order thereby putting the applicant into the possession of the said Property i.e. Plot No.29 situated at Parsi Colony, Off: M.A. Jinnah Road, Karachi as being lawful owner. E. Damages.
6. F. Costs of the proceedings. G. Any other relief or reliefs which this honourable Court may deem fit and proper under the above circumstances of the case'.
7. ' Succinctly in Criminal Revision Application No. 32 of 2013 the stand taken by applicant Viraf Daroga (who is Respondent No.1 in Criminal Revision Application 198 of 2012) is that applicant had filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application (Criminal Complaint 68 of 2012) stating therein that he is lawful owner of a house constructed on Plot No.29 situated at Parsi Colony, M.A. Jinnah Road, Karachi by virtue of a will executed in his favour by his grandmother namely Bai Jer Bai Meherwanji Daroga on 16-1-1944 and that respondents have dispossessed him from said house of which he was in lawful possession and the said property was mutated in his name in the revenue record and the SHO Soldier Bazar P.S. Submitted his report on 4-8-2012 and 123-8-2012(sic.) although without examining the witnesses of applicant and the learned trial Court on taking cognizance of Complaint No. 68 of 2012 was pleased to issue bailable warrants to the respondents who made appearance and furnished the sureties. Charge was framed and when the complaint became ripe for evidence of applicant/complainant and applicant filed an application for interim relief under section 7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 with a prayer to hand over possession of the said Property and the said application was dismissed vide impugned order dated 21-2-2013 hence the said order has been impugned through instant revision application.
8. ' It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicants Feroze Golawala and two others v. Viraf Daroga and two others (in Criminal Revision Application No.198 of 2012) that section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act is not applicable and that it is for the respondent No.1 (Viraf Daroga) to first establish his ownership of the title documents and on absence of same he has to seek remedies before the civil court and/or to obtain the Letters of Administration, to get the property transferred, in the name of a person, who is entitled for the transfer, which so far has not been done; the respondent No.1 was not in possession of the premises, since long and the property is still lying vacant, however, since it was repossessed the same is acquired lawfully 'by the office- bearers in the Society, under their powers to repossess the same, under the lease and that respondent No.1 has put up fake and fictitious tenant; in accordance with the lease covenant (2) the applicants have invoked the clause (2) which empowered the applicant Society in case of any covenant violated and is not performed or observed upon notice to the lessee/respondent No.1, the Society shall have the powers to enter into and upon the demised plot and premises or any part thereof in the name of the whole and sale to hold, repossesses and enjoy as if these present had not been granted without prejudice to the right of action of the lesser in respect of any breach of the lessee covenant; that notices were sent to the respondent No.1 residence as required under the law for the default committed and for initiating action as per terms of the bye-laws and the sub- lease; the impugned order passed by the learned trial court in the circumstances is illegal, unlawful, unjustified; hence merits to be set aside as the applicants are elected office-bearers of the Society and that the Society having acquired the knowledge of the forgeries, cheating and fraud committed, by forging the registered the complaint -- F.I.R. No.253/2012 dated 18-8-2012 and another F.I.R. No.264/2012 was lodged by the chowkidar and the present proceedings were initiated as a counter blast of the said F.I.Rs. He prays that the impugned order dated 10-9-2012 be set aside by this court in exercise of the revisional powers conferred.
9. ' Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 in rebuttal has argued that Illegal Dispossession Act is a special law enacted through Act XI of 2006 to curb the activities of the property grabbers and to protect the lawful owners and occupiers of immovable properties from their illegal and forcible dispossession therefrom by the property grabbers. He has further contended that preamble of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 is wide enough as by the use of words 'it is expedient to protect the lawful owners and occupiers of immovable properties from their illegal or forcible dispossession therefrom by the property grabbers wide powers have been conferred and it aims at to protect the interest of lawful owners and occupiers of immovable property from their illegal or forcible dispossession and the Act is not remedial but protective and so same is destined to be prospective in operation and that the Act is not meant to decide the ownership of the property in dispute which can only be decided by a civil court but the intent and object of the law is to protect the rights of owners and the lawful occupants of the property as against the unauthorized and illegal occupants. He has contended while referring to subsection (2) of section 4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act and has contended that it is the privilege and domain of the court under subsection (3) of section 4 of the said Act that at any stage court is empowered to direct the police to arrest the accused. He has further contended that under the scheme of Illegal Dispossession Act it has been envisaged that no bar exists in criminal law that at the first instance the evidence of the complainant and illegal occupant/accused should be recorded to ascertain as to whether the prima facie case is made out as prayed or otherwise and according to him when the court takes cognizance of complaint it would take cognizance of the offence and can summon proposed illegal occupants and the only pre-requisite is that the court to scrutinize complaint. He has contended that report from the police was called and since prima facie offence was found to have been made out the cognizance of the matter was taken and so he has contended that impugned order dated 10-9-2012 is legal, proper and within the four corners of law and same calls for no interference by this court while sitting as a court of appeal and enjoying the revisional powers conferred. He has further contended that scope of revision is limited to the extent to determine the legality and propriety of the order impugned.
10. ' Learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant/complainant Viraf Daroga (in Criminal Revision No.32 of 2013) vehemently argued that impugned order dated 21-2-2013 as passed by the learned trial Court whereby the application moved for grant of interim relief under section 7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was declined not sustainable in law and rather bad as such merits to be set aside. He has contended that 'Will' executed by a Parsi does not necessarily require registration, so also order for issuance of probate by any court of law, is also wholly misconceived and he has contended that admittedly the applicant being in possession of the said Property when dispossessed and so he (applicant) was within his right to pray for the interim relief of restoration of possession and he has further contended that by the use of word 'shall' the legislature in its wisdom has left is open to the trial Court if satisfied during the proceedings that a person is found prima facie to be not in lawful possession, interim relief to be allowed whereby directing to put the owner or occupier as the case may be, in possession according to him the only restriction in law is that court to first take cognizance of the offence and to frame charge, to which since has acted upon it was within the domain of the learned trial Court to have allowed the interim relief to the applicant, to which since was not done, the said order merits to be set aside and has cited PLD 2008 Lahore p.358, PLD 2011 Kar. p.624, 2007 PCr.LJ 1920.
11. ' On the other hand it has been contended on behalf of the respondents Nos.1 to 3 that impugned order is quite legal and proper and the action so taken by the respondents was within their dont'ain and the impugned order calls for no interference by this court in exercise of the revision jurisdiction.
12. He has further contended that it is not mandatory that in each and every case interim relief is to be allowed as a matter of routine, rather facts of each case have to be looked into and the impugned order on its bare reading speaks that the learned court has passed the detailed order while taking into consideration all the aspects of the matter, so also observing that the controversy between the parties in respect of possession and dispossession from the said Property can only be filtered after recording of evidence in the matter to ascertain liability if any under the provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. He has cited the case of Shaikh Muhammad Naseem v. Mst. Farida Gul reported in 2012 MLD 483, Ch. Muhammad Aslam and another v. Sirdar Ahmad Nawaz Sukheri and another reported in 2011 YLR Lahore 647, Muhammad Riaz. Ahmed Khan v. Imran Abdullah and five others reported in 2009 PCr.LJ Karachi 491 and Rahim Tahir v. Ahmed Jan and two others reported in PLD 2007 SC 423.
13. ' After hearing the learned counsel of both the sides at length I have considered the submissions made before me and have consulted the law in the subject, so also I have minutely gone through the reported dictums cited by the learned counsel for the respective parties.
14. Before proceeding further with this judgment, so also in order to effectively determine the controversy involved, I feel it advantageous to have a cursory glance on the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 (Act of 2005) which was promulgated on 6th of July, 2005 with its preamble "Whereas it is expedient to protect the lawful owners and occupiers of immovable properties from their illegal or forcible dispossession therefrom by the property grabbers". The Act is not remedial but protective and the words "is hereby" is used to connote present tense and the legislature has purposely avoided to use the past tense, the Act is destined to be prospective in operation and it being a special enactment has been promulgated to discourage the land grabbers and to protect the rights of owners and the lawful occupants of the property as against the unauthorized and illegal occupants. A complaint under this Act can be entertained by Court of Session only if some material exists showing involvement of the person complained against in some previous activity connected with illegal dispossession from immovable property or the complaint demonstrates an organized or calculated effort by some persons operating individually or in group to grab by force or deceit property to which they have no lawful, ostensible or justifiable claim. A deep glance on the preamble of the Act shows that the lawful possession of a person has been protected through the possession of the occupier might not be in the capacity of owner, but the condition precedent for the said purpose is that the possession of the person over the property in question must be lawful, meaning thereby the said possession is recognizable under the law. Person who has been dispossessed can have recourse to any remedy such as filing of civil suit under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 which is summary procedure; filing of civil suit for possession under Civil Procedure Code; criminal proceedings under sections 145 and 146, Cr.P.C., initiation of criminal prosecution under section 448, P.P.C. And Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 has been specifically enacted to discover the land grabbers and to protect right of owner and lawful occupant against illegal and unauthorized occupation under this Act speedily for effective and easy relief has been provided to the owner as well as the lawful occupant of the property whereby a complaint is required to be filed by a person who is either the owner or the occupier of the property at the time of filing of such complaint; on being dispossessed by accused without due course of law; Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 being special law, empowers the court to conduct special investigation within the stipulated period and after receipt of the investigation report the court is required to apply its mind as to whether to proceed further with the matter under section 5(2) of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 or otherwise and if the court comes to the conclusion that a prima facie case is made out for taking cognizance, the court thereafter is required to proceed with day-to- day trial. Powers as to attachment of property till final decision of the case has been conferred under section 6 of the Act, 2005. There are various celebrated decisions in field as passed by our own High Court as well as the honourable Lahore High Court on the subject. All persons have been prohibited to commit the offence either he be a male or female and for the purposes to bring in complaint material ingredients to which brought to the record would be:-
(i) That the complainant is the actual owner (or occupier i.e. In lawful possession) of the immovable property in question.
(ii) That the accused has entered into (or upon) the said property.
(iii) That the entry of the accused into (or upon) the said property is without any lawful authority.
(iv) That that accused has done so with the intention to dispossess (to grab or to control or to occupy) the complainant.
15. ' Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, in its judgment as reported in PLD 2007 SC 423 has made it settled that "Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 is special enactment, which has been promulgated to discourage the land-grabbers and to protect the right of owners and the lawful occupant of the property as against the unauthorized and illegal occupants".
16. ' Now adverting to section 2(c), (d) and (e) of the Act, 2005 which envisages:- "(c) Occupier means the person who is in lawful possession of 'a property; (The word 'lawful' used by the legislature is of great significance).
(d) Owner means the person actually owns the property at the time of his dispossession, otherwise than through a process of law, and (The word owner means person actually owning the property at the time of the dispossession, otherwise than through a process, of law).
(e) Property means immovable property.
17. (The word immovable property means property which is not capable of moving from one place to another).
18. ' With reference to the above aspects, since the captioned revisions before me (Criminal Revision No.198 of 2012) is outcome of order dated 10-9-2012 which was passed regarding taking cognizance of the offence and issuance of B.Ws., whereas impugned order dated 21-2-2013 (as passed is the subject-matter of Criminal Revision Application No.32 of 2013) whereby application under section 7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was declined and so it would also be advantageous to refer to sections 3, 6 and 7 of the provisions of law which read:- "3. Prevention of illegal possession of property, etc.---(1) No one shall enter into or upon any property to dispossess, grab, control or occupy it without having any lawful authority to do so with the intention to dispossess, grab, control or, occupy the property from owner or occupier of such property.
(2) Whoever contravenes the provisions of the subsection (1) shall, without prejudice to any punishment to which he may be liable under any other law for the time being in force, be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to ten years and with fine and the victim of the offence shall also be compensated in accordance with the provisions of section 544 of the Code".
19. "6 "Power to attach property.---(1) If the court is satisfied that none of the persons are in possession immediately before the commission of the offence, the court may attach the property until final decision of the case.
(2) In case of attachment, the methods of its management, safeguard against natural decay or deterioration shall be determined by the court."
20. "7 "Eviction and mode of recovery of an interim relief---(1) If during the trial the court is satisfied that .a person is found prima-facie to be not in lawful possession, the court shall, as an interim relief direct him to put the owner or occupier as the case may be, in possession.
(2) Where the person against whom any such order is passed under subsection (1) fails to comply with the same, the Court shall, notwithstanding any other law for the time being in force, take such steps and pass such order as may be necessary to put owner or occupier in possession.
(3) The court may authorize any official or officer to take possession for securing compliance with its orders under subsection (1). The person so authorized may use or cause to be used such force as may be necessary.
(4) If any person, authorized by the court, under subsection (3) requires police assistance in the exercise of his power under this Act, he may send a requisition to the officer-in-charge of a police station who shall on such requisition render such assistance as may be required.
(5) The failure of the officer-in-charge of police station to render assistance under subsection (4) shall amount to misconduct for which the court may direct departmental action against him".
21. ' As mentioned supra in Criminal Revision Application No. 198 of 2012 to which was preferred on behalf of applicants Feroze Golawala and two others v. Viraf Daroga and two others, order dated 10-9-2012 has been questioned on the ground that such impugned order should not have been passed as according to the learned counsel it was within the domain of the society to repossess the said Property in case of breach of the lessees covenants to which is reproduced as follows:- "If the rents hereby reserved or any part thereof shall be unpaid for one month after becoming payable (whether formally demanded or not) or if any covenant of the lessee's part herein contained shall not be performed or observed then and in any of the said cases it shall be lawful for the lessor at any time thereafter to give to the lessee three calendar months notice requiring the lessee to remedy the same and on expiration of such notice, unless the same shall have been complied with in time, enter into and upon the demised plot and premises or any part thereof in the name of the whole and the same to hold repossess and enjoy as if these presents had never been granted without prejudice to the right of action of the lessor in respect of any breach of the Lessee's covenants herein contained".
22. ' However, the case as set-up by the applicant/complainant Viraf Daroga vide Criminal Complaint No. 68 of 2012 is that it was he being owner and his name being mutated in the relevant record which show him as owner, was rented out by him to tenant Imran Haider and it was on the occasion of putting said tenant in possession of the said house that 20 culprits duly armed dispossessed such tenant of the applicant and, as such, forcibly entered the said Property and such action was without any lawful authority, title and justification grabbed the said Property and thereby committed the offence attracting to the provisions of the Illegal Dispossession Act as he has documentary proof in shape of payment of bills of amenities to substantiate and copy of passport reflecting the address of the said Property and report from the police was called to which reflects that the Said Property was in the name of Jubai Merwanji Daroga which was mutated in the year 1971 in favour of applicant Viraf Daroga. Further subsequent to filing the complaint the Society contested the issue of ownership of this applicant with the Revenue Authority who then cancelled the mutation earlier issued in the name of the applicant, however, the same was contested by the applicant before this forum and the record reveals that prima facie the applicant Viraf. Daroga is owner and so also occupier of the said Property, upon which Feroze Golawala, Rustom Bhurikhan and Faramerz Khambatta are the encroachers as they illegally and unlawfully occupied the said Property, so the complaint was admitted as regular file and B. Ws.- was ordered to be issued. The ingredients or element of section 3(1) of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 are that accused enters into or upon any property without having any lawful authority to do so and with intention of dispossession of or grabbing, controlling or occupying the property from the owner or occupier thereof and the more essential ingredients of Illegal Dispossession Act is that's there should be dispossession of the owner or occupation of the property and in case the owner or occupier does not level allegation of his dispossession or forcible occupation of accused over the property when the provision of Act, 2005 would not be applicable and in order to constitute offence, complainant must disclose existence of both an unlawful act and criminal intent and my this view gets support from the dictum as reported in PLD 2011 SC 181 wherein even it has been envisaged that for the purposes of attracting provisions of section 3 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 court is required to examine as to whether property was an immovable property, secondly that the person was owner or the property was in his lawful possession and thirdly that accused entered into or upon the property unlawfully, fourthly that such entry was with intention to dispossess i.e. Ouster evictor deriving out of possession against the will of person in actual possession or to grab i.e. Capture, seize suddenly, take greedily or unfairly, or to control i.e. To exercise power or influence over regulate or governor relates to authority over what is not in one's physical possession or to occupy i.e. Holding possession, reside in or something. Meaning of the words clearly demonstrates that if anybody controls or holds unlawful or illegal possession of the property at the time of enactment then he would come within the ambit of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005.
23. ' Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Feroz Golawala, Rustom Bhurekhan and Faramerz Khambatta (Applicants in Criminal Revision Application No. 198 of 2012) who vehemently contended that cognizance was not rightly taken and he has cited the case of Shaikh Muhammad Naseem v. Mst. Farida Gul (2012 MLD 483 Sindh), Jalal and 11 others v. Kapri Khan and another (PLD 2008 Karachi 369) Rahim Tahir v. Ahmed Jan and two others (PLD 2007 SC 423), Ch. Muhammad Aslam and another v. Sirdar Ahmed Nawaz Sukhera and another (2011 YLR Lahore 647), Sattan Kumar v. Muhammad Yousif (2000 PCr.LJ Karachi 1186) are quite distinguishable from the facts of the instant case; hence I an of the view that cognizance was rightly taken by the learned trial Court and so the order dated 10-9-2012 to which is within the four corners of law and no doubt there is also civil litigation involved but there is no bar in initiating civil and criminal action at one and the same time. To my view the order dated 10-9-2012 calls for no interference merely taking cognizance of the complaint it does not means that offence involved stands proved, rather if the order dated 10-9-2012 is carefully looked-into there is use of word 'prima facie', meaning thereby it is still open for the parties to place their respective case at regular trial where the accused party would have the privilege to raise their plea since they claim that the property was re-occupied by them for non-payment but the fact remains that at the relevant time the said Property was in possession of Applicant Viraf Daroga and he was paying the bills of utilities and the Said Property was to be rented-out to the tenant when it is claimed that all of sudden the respondents/accused in the complaint came along with their hired men and occupied the said property and this all to be substantiated during evidence.
24. ' As regards Criminal Revision No. 32 of 2013 whereby order dated 21-2-2013 was impugned to which was passed on the application moved under section 7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 is concerned, the very preamble of the Act and so also the said provision in itself speaks that if during trial the court is satisfied that a person is found prima-facie to be not in lawful possession, the court shall, as an interim relief direct him to put the owner or occupier as the case may be, in possession there was no harm in granting relief to applicant Viraf Daroga who being recorded owner (though it is the claim of Feroz Golawala and others that his title is in dispute but the fact remains that until and unless the competent court of law give its final verdict, no adverse inference can be drawn and in this context the dictums as reported in 2002 MLD p.1527 to which speaks that mere existence of a dispute as to ownership or even a claim as to title of premises would not authorize any one to take forcible possession of said premises. Action of forcible possession of premises, was struck down by this forum as without lawful authority. Further it is also the settled dictum that determination as to title of the property is not the function or in the domain of the criminal court and further in the matters relating to Illegal Dispossession Act with reference to section 3 of the Act court is not competent to give any finding in regard to the authenticity of a document, rather the matter is to be looked into and tackled within the purview of the law framed and so I am of the view that when it is apparent otherwise from the plea as taken on behalf of the Feroz Golawalla and others that they initiated such action of taking over possession in pursuant to alleged dispute, the learned trial Court was supposed to have allowed any of the interim relief to which was also made on two fold aspect i.e. To attach and hand over vacant possession of the said Property i.e. Plot No.29 situated at Parsi Colony, Off: M.A. Jinnah Road, Karachi till the final decision of the main complaint and I am of the view that intent and object of legislature in introducing section 7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 as enacted is to hand over possession to the owner of occupier, which power to be exercised during trial after framing of charge as has been laid down in the dictum reported as 2009 PCr.LJ 134, to which in all fairness was framed by the learned trial Court and the matter is ripen for evidence and so the discretionary powers ought to have been exercised in favour of the aggrieved person who was able to bring his case within the domain of Illegal Dispossession Act and so the learned trial Court was expected to have issued the direction within the meaning of section 7 read with section 8 of the. Illegal Dispossession Act whereby directing the SHO of the concerned P.S. For assistance as may be necessary for restoration of the possession to the rightful owner or the occupier and at least it may pass direction for attachment of sealing of .The property pending disposal of the complaint so as to avoid creating any sort of third party interest by the society and since this has not been done and so I have no hesitation in observing that applicant Viraf Daroga (In Criminal Revision No.32 of 2013) has made out a case where this court should exercise the revisional powers conferred.
25. Sum up of the above discussion is that Criminal Revision Application No.198 of 2012 (Feroz Golawala and two others v. Viraf Daroga and others) is hereby dismissed with observation that order dated 10-9-2012 as to taking cognizance of complaint and admitting the complaint to regular hearing calls for no interference by this court, whereas Criminal Revision Application No.32 is hereby allowed and in the result the learned trial Court is directed to put the owner or occupier (in the present case applicant Viraf Daroga), in possession of the said Property through the S.H.O. Of the concerned police station.
26. ' The above Revision Applications are disposed of accordingly. The observations made hereinabove are of tentative nature and it will not prejudice either party during trial of their matter