MUHAMMAD AYUB KHAN, J.--Through the instant constitutional petition, the petitioners Said Akbar and Naseem Khan have called in question the order dated 02.11.2016 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Paharpur, D.I.Khan whereby the complaint filed by respondent No,2 under, sections 3/4 of Illegal Dispossession Act was held maintainable.
2. The facts giving rise to the instant petition, in brief, are that respondent No,2 Tiled a complaint under sections 3/4 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Paharpur, D.I.Khan alleging that he, his brothers and other relatives are owners of a house measuring 14 marlas situated in Mauza Saudi Wali, Tehsil Paharpur, D.I.Khan and the petitioners forcibly took possession of the same, a month ago when respondent No,2 and his relatives were away to Karak in connection with their service.
3. The complaint was marked to local police and after inquiry, report was submitted by the local police, where after it was held maintainable vide impugned order (Wed 02.11.2016.
4. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the available record.
5. Perusal of para-1 of the complaint reveals that respondent No,2, his brothers and other relatives claimed ownership of the house measuring 14 marlas on the basis of an agreement dated 15.4.1977.
The learned lower Court through the impugned order posted the complaint for trial and rightly so because the said document is required to be proved/disproved through recording of pro and contra evidence. At this preliminary stage, its legality or otherwise cannot be determined without recording evidence. In the case of Mst. Gulsham Bibi, and others v. Muhammad Sadiq and others PLD 2016 SC 769, it was held that:-- "The Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 aims at granting efficacious relief to lawful owners and occupiers in case they are dispossessed by anyone without lawful authority."
No jurisdictional error appears to have been committed by the learned lower Court while passing the impugned order calling for interference by this Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction.
6. For the reasons mentioned above, the instant petition being bereft of merit and substance is hereby dismissed along with C.M.No,588-D/2016.