1. ' ABDUL HAYEE KURESHT, ACTG. C. J.-The present petition has been filed by Anjuman-e-Asna Ashari, who claim to be allottee in respect of half the plot, bearing No, 112/H in Block 2 of the P. E. C. H. S. In fact, the total area of the plot is stated to be in the neighbourhood of 4,200 sq. Yds. Out of which half has been given to the Society, and the allotment was made for the purpose of construction of a mosque and Imambara. It is admitted case that the allotment was made on 22-8-1954. Mr. Wazir Ali Vazir has stated unequivocally that neither a mosque nor an Imambara has been constructed.
2. However, he stated that a but for some ehowkidars has been constructed. For some reasons, which commended themselves to Pakistan Employees' Co-operative Society, the allotment in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. This was as early as in 1962. We would not like to enter into the bona fide, or, mala fides of such action of the said Society, because we have been informed that, to challenge the said cancellation, a suit was filed, wherein an application for grant of injunction was made, which application having been decided adversely to the petitioner, an appeal has been filed, and an order of status quo has been obtained. This litigation in civil Courts has been pending now for the last twenty years.
3. ' In the meantime, the remaining half portion of the said plot was allotted by the Society to the Karachi Municipal Corporation for construction of a school and a playground. What has been happening during the last fifteen, or, twenty years is not easy to guess, but it would seem that there has been litigation between the Society, the Karachi Municipal Corporation and the petitioner.
4. ' Recently, allegations were made by the petitioner that the Karachi Municipal Corporation was trespassing on the land, which was the plot originally allotted to the petitioner. It seems there was a likelihood of a breach of peace, so that the police took action, and sent up a Report under section 145(1), Cr. P. C. Before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Centre, Karachi. The said Magistrate, on 22-5- 1983, has passed an order under section 145(1), Cr. P. C., which reads as follows :- "It has been made to appear to me by the police report from Ferozabad P. S. That a dispute like to induce a breach of peace exists between Anjuman Asna Ashari, on one side and P. E. C. H. S. And K.
5. M. C. On the other side in respect of the plot in front of Row No, 112 from N to H measuring about 4,200 sq. Yds. Concerning the possession of the said plot, situate within the local limits of my jurisdiction. Therefore, the parties are called upon to submit, a written statement of their respective claim as to the fact of actual possession of the said plot in dispute, within 7 days of the receipt of this order, before this Court."
6. ' The Magistrate expressed that the situation was of an emergent nature, and therefore, the plot should be attached, pending enquiry. Mr. Wazir Ali Vazir has made a grievance that a wall has been constructed on the said plot, and this has been constructed with the connivance of the superior officers in the administration of Karachi. He attempted to argue that it was the Commissioner of Karachi, who had directed the construction of a wall, but when we asked him to show any document to that effect, he expressed his inability. Be that as it may, we will, for the purposes of the present petition, assume that some one has constructed, or, attempted to construct a wall on the plot, on which the petitioners are laying a claim.
7. ' The petitioners now claim the following reliefs :- "(a) declare the impugned orders passed by the respondent No, 4 dated 22nd May, 1983 and 23rd May, 1983 Annexures `P-1' and `P-2' as of without lawful authority and with no legal effect.
(b) declare the contract awarded to the respondent No, 9 by the respondents Nos. 10 and 11 vide letters, dated 10th July, 1983 and 16th July, 1983 under direction of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 vide their letters dated 2nd June, 1983 and 30th May, 1983.
(c) prohibit and restrain the respective respondents from implementing and giving effect either to the impugned contract themselves or through any other person or Agency.
(d) declare that the respective respondents have committed contempt of Court by unlawfully attempting to convert the status of plot and by entering upon it whilst the possession of the plot is with the petitioner and status quo from a civil Court subsists.
(e) direct respondent No, 1 to issue instructions to the police for taking appropriate action by registering cases against respondents Nos. 5 to 9 for committing trespass and other offences by unlawfully entering upon the plot in dispute whilst it is possession of the petitioner with an intention to dispossess the petitioner and against respondents Nos. 10 and 11 for the unlawful attempt made by them to convert status of the plot.
(f) direct respondent No, 1 to investigate into the causes of unlawful actions taken by the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 in collusion with the respondent No, 5 and others and taken necessary action accordingly.
(g) direct respondent No, 4 to hand over possession of the disputed plot."
8. ' The patent position is that the allotment of the petitioners had been cancelled, and that the petitioners were not in actual physical occupation of the plot. Mr. Wazir Ali Vazir, however, states that there is an order of "status quo" from the civil Court. By use of the word "status quo", all that can be implied is that the same status in regard to title, or, possession of immovable property as existed on the date of filing of the suit was to be maintained.14 In such circumstances, Mr. Wazir Ali Vazir has not set up a case that this plot has been allotted to some one else. Nor has he set up a case that any one has taken over possession of the plot, or, raised any construction on the same.
9. Such status quo does not appear to have been violated. However, if the petitioner feels aggrieved, his proper remedy would be to move the civil Court for redress on that ground. Presently, we are of the view that, by the grant of order of status quo, the allotment in favour of the petitioner has not got restored.
10. There are more reasons why we decline to entertain this petition. Firstly, litigation is pending in the civil Court in regard to the same subject-matter. This litigation, we must say it to our dismay and disappointment, has continued for twenty years. We can only hope that this litigation will be taken up in due seriousness by the Court that is seized of the case, and decide the matter. As regards the other case under section 145, Cr. P. C., we must state that, by any order, which we may pass, we are likely to prejudice the case of one, or, the other party before the Magistrate. The short point in that case is determination of the question of possession, and such point has also to be decided by the criminal Court.
11. ' In these circumstances, it would appear that the question in regard to title as well as possession is pending before the competent Courts.
12. ' Mr. Wazir Ali Valk, however, contended that the Magistrate would not be able to appreciate the points of law that are likely to be raised in this matter. He states that, for such reason, this Court may exercise its jurisdiction under the Constitution. We have not been able to understand that argument, Nor has Mr. Wazir Ali Vazir been able to propound any such complicated question of law in this case.
13. ' We see no substance in this petition, which we dismiss in limine.