' The petitioner through the present Constitutional petition has prayed for following reliefs:- "Under the above circumstances, it is most respectully prayed that the respondent No,4 may very kindly be directed to release the cattle and house-holds in question after breaking the seal of the house of the petitioner and hand over to the petitioner.
' It is further prayed to kindly declare that the proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. Against the petitioner are illegal and without jurisdiction and mala fide.
' It is further prayed to kindly direct the respondent No,6 to initiate the proceedings under section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, against the respondents, as they have misused their official powers in conspiracy with each other.
' It is further prayed for the grant of any other relief which is deemed fit and proper including the restoration of the possession of the property in question."
' The necessary background as stated in the writ petition is that Muhammad Hanif, father of the petitioner and respondent No,1 owned a house and a Haveli. Since the petitioner and respondent No,1 are from different mothers, therefore, there was a dispute between them as to the division of property held by their father. It is pleaded that the matter was referred to arbitrators, who announced their awards on 16-3-1989. It is added that thereafter the parties occupied the respective properties falling to their shares. The property in dispute this way came into the possession of the petitioner but sometime thereafter respondents Nos.1 to 3 tried to forcibly occupy the same. The police submitted a report dated 3-7-1989 to the Illaqa Magistrate for taking out proceedings under section 145 of the Cr.P.C. The Magistrate after going through the report ordered the attachment of premises vide order dated 9-7-1989 and issued the notices to the parties for 16- 7-1989. The petitioner thereafter is said to have made an application for release of the cattle and birds in the sealed premises but police reported that there are no cattle and birds in the premises in dispute, therefore, the petition was dismissed.
2. The petitioner in this background has filed this petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Before proceeding any further it may be mentioned that vide order dated 19-8-1989, this Court appointed Ch. Muhammad Rashid Gogari, Advocate of Okara as Local Commissioner to visit the spot and submit report as to whether there are any cattle and birds inside the sealed premises. The petitioner took up the plea and examined witnesses before the learned Local Commissioner as to the presence of cattle and birds in the premises. On the other hand, respondents Nos.1 to 3 took up the position that the cattle and birds have been brought in the premises afterwards and they also produced witnesses in support of their contention. Be that as it may one fact is clear from the report that there is a cow and four goats in the premises which admittedly belonged to the petitioner.
3. Now coming to the merits of this petition. The petitioner has impugned the interim order. The parties are yet to file their written statements before the Illaqa Magistrate. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that there was neither sufficient material on record nor there was any imminent danger to the peace. It is added that a civil suit is going on between the parties.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 to 3 has submitted that this petition is premature and misconceived. It is argued that this is only interim order and the petitioner can urge all these grounds before the Magistrate, who is competent to attend to the grievances of the petitioner. The learned counsel has no objection to the cow and goats being taken out from the premises.
5. I have given my anxious considerations to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
The order dated 9-7-1989 is only an interim order made under proviso to subsection (4) of section 145, Cr.P.C. Since both the parties are claiming possession, therefore, prima facie the order is justified. The final order is A yet to be passed after hearing the parties, therefore, there is weight in the preliminary objection of the learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 to 3 that the present petition is premature and misconceived.
6. The order is prima facie with jurisdiction and the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any patent illegality or inherent lack of jurisdiction, therefore, there is nothing for interference with the order in writ jurisdiction. However, I direct the parties to appear before the learned Magistrate on 21-10-1989 and the learned Magistrate is directed to conclude the proceedings either way by 23-11-1989.
7. Now coming to the cow and goats. The respondent No,4 is directed to hand over the cow and goats to the petitioner forthwith. This way the only relief left untouched is direction to respondent No,6 to initiate proceedings against the respondents under section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. The, admitted position is that the petitioner has never approached the respondent No,6 for this purpose. Let the petitioner bring his grievance to the notice of respondent No,6, who shall proceed strictly in accordance with law.
8. The result is that the present petition is premature and is disposed of in the above terms.