IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.---The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant Criminal Misc. Application are that the private respondent filed an application under section 22-A(6)(iii), Cr.P.C. before learned Sessions Judge/Ex-Of ficio Justice of Peace, Qamber Shandadkot @ Qamber , praying therein for the grant of following relief; a) That this honourable Court may be pleased to call the respondent (the Mukhtia rkar Taluka Kamber) and direct him to keep such entry in the revenue record in the light of registered sale deed which was duly executed as per the orders of the Honourable Court after issuance of Fard Certificate from the office of respondent, in accordance with law and relevant rules. b) That this honourable Court may be pleased to take an action accordance with law against the respondent, who had not kept such entry of applicant in the revenue record since last 11 months so also not obeying the order of Honourable Court and presuming himself above the law .
Any other relief, which this Honourable Court deems fit and proper .
2. The learned Sessions Judge/Ex-Of ficio Justice of Peace, Qamber Shandadkot @ Qamber , after due hearing to the private respondent and others disposed of the above said application vide order dated 30.03.2017, the operative part whereof reads as under; "I am at the humble view that Mukhtiarkar Revenue Taluka Kamber is duty bound to affect the entry in the record of rights of the revenue department in the light of registered deed to which was executed by the Nazir of Court on 27.04.2016 and about one year has been passed and he is avoiding to affect such entry reasons best known to him and he is hereby directed to maintai n the record of rights in favour of person who has succeeded to get the execution of registered sale deed in his favour and to submit the copy of such record of rights with this Court within a period of 10 days after receipt of the order of this Court".
3. The applicant being aggrieved of above said order has impugned the same before this Court by way of instant Crl. Misc. Application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C., which is objected by the private respondents by way of filing his written objections.
4. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the learned Ex-Of ficio Justice of Peace/Sessions Judge, Qamber Shandadkot Qamber , was having no authority to have determined the civil right of the parties by resorting to provisions of section 22-A(6)(iii), Cr .P.C. By contending so, he sought for setting aside of the impugned order .
5. Learned counsel for the private respondent has sought for dismissal of the application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C., by contending that neither it is filed within time nor the applicant was party before learned Ex-Of ficio Justice of Peace/Sessions Judge, Qamber Shandadkot Qamber . By contending so, an impression was given that the applicant is not an aggrieved person to have filed the instant application.
6. In rebuttal to above, it is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the private respondent has obtained the decree from Court of learned 1st Senior Civil Judge Kamber and he has sought for setting aside of decree by way of filing an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. By contending so, an impression was given that the applicant being aggrieved person is having a every right to challenge the impugned order .
7. Learned A.P.G did not support the impugned order .
8. I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.
9. Since, the very competence of the impu gned order has been questioned, while claiming that provision of section 22-A(6)(iii) of the Code vest no jurisdiction in Ex-Of ficio Justice of Peace in issuing direction to Revenue Authority even for maintaining Record of Rights therefore, it would be conducive to refer section 22-A(6)(iii), Cr.P.C. which reads as under: "[(6) An ex-of ficio justice of the Peace may issue appropriate directions to the police authorities concerned on a complaint regarding.
(i) Non-registration of criminal case;
(ii) Transfer of investigation from one police of ficer to another; and
(iii) neglect, failure or excess committed by a police authority in relation to its functions and duties.]"
10. There is nothing in above provision of law which may authorize an Ex-Of ficio Justice of Peace to issue direction to revenue authorities to maintain record of right by exercising his powers under section 22-A(6)(iii), Cr.P.C. rather the provision is quite clear and obvious that it is aimed to provide a watch over acts and omissions of police only.
Here, it may well be added that "jurisdictio n" is meant a power to hear and decide a legal controversy between the parties which could be vested by none but the law alone and absence of such power Would alone be sufficient to render such order as "without jurisdiction". Reference in that respect may well be placed upon the case of Searle IV solution (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan 2018 SCMR 1444 (Rel. P-1458) wherein it is observed by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan that: "...wherein this Court held that by "jurisdiction" is meant a power to hear and decide a legal controversy between the parties...
Since, prima facie, the provision of section 22-A(6)(iii) of the Code, nowhere, vests any power in Ex-O fficio Justice of Peace to hear and decide a complain t of negligence by any other official authority , but police hence it would always be safe to conclude that any such direction would be 'without jurisdiction' . In that situation, it is rightly being contended by learned counsel for the applicant that learned Sessions Judge/Ex-of ficio Justice of Peace, Qamber Shandadkot @ Qamber , has passed the impugned order in exercise of jurisdiction, which was not invested to him. No order which is passed in excess of jurisdiction could be protected on point of limitation. The applicant of course was not made a party by the private respondent in his application under section 22-A(6)(iii), Cr.P.C. before the learned Sessions Judge/Ex-Of ficio Justice of Peace, Qamber Shandadkot @ Qamber , perhaps knowingly to cover up his wrong doing. Even otherwise, an order , passed by a judicial officer , without having any lawful power (jurisdiction ), once comes to notice of High Court can well be examined even without any application. In these circumstances, the impugned order could not be sustained, it is set aside.
11. Above are the reasons of short order dated 18.08.2018, whereby the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Application was disposed of accordingly .