ABDULLAH BALOCH, J.---This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 11th February , 2017 (hereinafter referred as "the impugned order ") passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Quetta (hereinafter referred as "the trial Court ") whereby the complaint under sections 3, 4, 5 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. Brief facts arising from the instant petition are that the petitioner filed a complaint under sections 3, 4, 5 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 in the trial Court with the averments that he has purchased a house bearing land Khasra Nos. 4129 and 4128, measuring 1500 sq.ft. situated at Mohal Karkha, Mouza Kirani, Tappa Shandinzai No.1, Tehsil City, District Quetta from one Ziarat Gul son of Haji Faiz Muhammad and after purchase of the property , the possession of house was handed over to the complainant, as such, he was enjoying the peaceful possession of the property in question. It is further submitted by the petitioner that he has started construction work in the house in question, but in the meanwhile, he became ill and the construction work was stopped and after his recovery from ailment when he visited the property , it was surprised that the respondent No.1 with connivance of his other companions have broken the locks of house and illegally occupied the same; despite of the fact, the complainant has produced its titled documents, but the respondent No.1 was reluctant to vacate the possession. That the learned trial Court on receipt of complaint called for the report from the SHO conce rned and after going through the same, came to the conclusion that the matter pertains to a civil dispute; thus, dismissed the complaint of the petitioner vide impugned order as mentioned hereinabove in para No 1.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record minutely , which reveals that the petitioner claimed to be the recorded owner of the house constructed upon the land bearing Khasra Nos. 4129 and 4128, measuring 1500 sq.ft. situated at Mohal Karkha, Mouza Kirani, Tappa Shandinzai No.1, Tehsil City, District Quetta, which was forcibly occupied by the respondent No.1 and his companion i.e. respondent No.2 in his absence, but according to the report dated 15th April, 2016 submitted by the SHO concerned; wherein it is clearly mentioned that the house about which the complainant is claiming, is in the possession of one Muhammad Azeem and the said Muhammad Azeem further rented out the said house to one Muhammad Ayoub Bugti. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has failed to make Muhammad Azeem and Muhammad Ayoub Bugti as party in his complaint, however , he has made both of them as party in the present petition. In the interest of justice number of times notices were issued for them, but however , none appeared on behalf of respondent No.3; however , one Mr. Lakhmi Chand Khurana, Advocate appeared on behalf of respondent No.2 and thereafter he remained absent, but however , appeared today , while service was not effected upon the respondent No.3. Be that as it may, since both the respondents were not party to the complaint, as such, no purpose could be served for their presentation. The record further reflects that civil litigation between the parties with regard to disputed property were remained pending before the Civil Courts and the report of SHO concerned shows that there is a business dispute of property , cash and cars between the complainant, the respondent No.1 and Muhammad Azeem. In view of the above, it appears that the parties have already tried to resolve the dispute through civil litigations, but however , as a counterblast filed this complaint and the learned trial Court has rightly opined that the matter between parties pertains to civil dispute and made following observations: "4. After hearing the learned counsel for complainant and perused the report called from SHO. The perusal of report dated 15.04.2016 produced by the SHO shows that the house about which the complainant is claiming is in the possession of one Muhammad Azim. The said Muhammad Azim has rented out this house to one Muhammad Ayub Bugti. The complainant failed to make Muhammad Azim as party in this complaint. The complainant is also not alleging or claiming of illegal dispossession of the said house against Muhammad Azim. The complainant is claiming that the respondent No.1 has forcefully dispossessed him from the said house, while on the other hand the report of SHO shows that it is in the possession of Muhammad Azim and he rented out the same. This report also shows that the complainant is the owner of this house as per Tehsil and Revenue record. This report also shows that there is a business dispute of property , cash and cars between the complainant, respondent No.1 and Muhammad Azim. The parties also tried to resolve the dispute through arbitrators. The bare perusal of record and arguments extended by the learned counsel for complainant shows that the nature of dispute between the complainant and respondent No.1 is a business dispute and of a civil nature. The possession as per report of SHO is also with one Muhammad Azim, who was not made as party in this complaint. The main purpose of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 is quite clear that the said act is connecting to curb the activities of the property grabbers.
It also protects the lawful owner and occupiers of immovable properties from their illegal or forcible dispossession, there from by property grabbers."
4. Since matter pertains to factual controversy which could be resolved after thorough inquiry and recording of evidence in a Civil Court, in this respect reference can be made to the case of "Secretary to the Government of Punjab v . Ghulam Nabi ( PLD 2001 SC 415 ), wherein it was held that: "It hardly needs any elaboration that "the superior Courts should not involve themselves into investigations of disputed question of fact which, necessitate taking of evidence. This can more appropriately be done in the ordinary Civil Procedure for litigation by a suit. This extraordinary jurisdiction is intended primarily , for providing an expeditious remedy in a case where the illegality of the impugned action of an executive or other authority can be established without any elaborate enquiry into complicated or disputed facts".
In view of the above the findings of the trial Court does not suffer from illegality or irregularity to warrant interference by this Court.
For the reasons discussed hereinabove, the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.