In this writ petition, the complainant made by the petitioner is that on account of connection of respondent No. 1 with respondents Nos. 6 and, 7, petitioner No. 1 has been forcibly evicted from a shop by respondents Nos. 6 and 7 with the help of respondent No. 1. A suit was earlier filed in which there was an undertaking given from the respondents' side that the occupants-would not be evicted, except in accordance with law. Despite that, the allegation in the petition is, the respondents took law into their own hands and through extreme high-handedness effected the eviction of petitioner No. 1. Several prayers have been made including the one that a criminal case should be ordered to be registered for various offences alleged to have been committed by the respondents.
2. Notice in the petition was ordered on 28th June, 1978 to the S. H. O. He, it is mentioned in the order dated 4th July, 1978, refused to accept the notice and also quarrelled with the process-server. He is present today. Although he has denied the allegation qua process-server, but he has undertaken not to do anything in future which might even border on contempt of this Court.
3. The learned Assistant Advocate-General states that instructions were sought from Martial Law Headquarters with regard to the allegations made against respondent No. 1 but the letter was sent on 8th July, 1978 and on account of paucity of time, the Advocate-General's officer has not yet received the instructions.
4. Learned counsel for respondents Nos. 6 and 7, when questioned with regard to their plea on the question of their having contravened the undertaking given before the civil Court, has taken the plea that the possession was surrendered through a Panchayat on payment of compensation.
When questioned with regard to the date when the so-called Panchayat proceedings took place, he replied that it was probably on 14th or 15th of June, 1978. When further questioned as to how this process could be treated as a process in accordance with law for evicting an occupant of a shop regarding which the respondents had given an undertaking before the civil Court, learned counsel has replied that notwithstanding that undertaking it is not- unlawful for an occupant to surrender the possession voluntarily, particularly when it is on payment of compensation.
5. Muhammad Akram, one of the said two respondents, it is now revealed, is present, although his learned counsel had earlier explained that his clients were not present in the Court and he had sought an adjournment on account of the reason that he was engaged only last night. There was an interval of about 10 to 15 minutes, before Muhammad Akram was called upon to state his plea with regard to allegations of high-handedness made in the petition. Prior to that, I had asked the Investigating Police Officer regarding 107/151, Cr. P. C., proceedings to produce the documents relating thereto and I had seen from those documents that the police reports intended to be submitted for Court action were signed on 15th June, 1978. Thereafter, when questioned in this behalf, Muhammad Akram stated that the alleged voluntary surrender through compensation took place after the police proceedings. Prima facie, it looks as if there is considerable force in the petitioners' assertion with regard to illegal proceedings and high-handedness exercised to achieve eviction through unlawful means. But it would be impossible to give any final finding in this behalf without recording voluminous evidence from both the sides. At least, dozens of witnesses would have to be recorded. At this stage, it is necessary to note that, as stated at the bar, both the parties have already moved the civil Court for taking action against the others. On the application submitted from the petitioner's side, the respondents therein have already been proceeded against. Some of them did not appear and, according to the information received by the learned counsel for the petitioners, warrants of arrest have already been issued by the learned civil Court.
Learned counsel for the respondents states that the respondents have also filed a civil suit against petitioner ho. I for recovery of arrears of rent.
6. After hearing all the learned counsel, I feel satisfied that the learned civil Court is taking due and prompt action with regard to the complainant made by the petitioners. There is no reason why the proceedings should not be taken to their logical conclusion. The civil Court is competent to make directions which during the trial of the case become necessary to be made. It is not necessary to proceed any further on this petition when the learned civil Court has already taken cognizance of the main subject-matter of this petition.
7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners has insisted that a direction be made to police for registration of case for criminal offences. After having noticed the attitude of the Police in this case, I feel that registration of a case will be counter-productive. The petitioners, if so advised, may file a "complainant" directly in a competent Court.
8. With the above observations, this petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.