1. ' The facts leading to the filing of this Constitutional petition are that petitioner was gifted a house bearing No,8/173, measuring 7-1/2 Marlas situated in Mohallah Karimpura Lala Musa, Tehsil Kharian, District Gujrat, by her former husband, Muzaffar Ahmed, respondent No,4 in 1982. The differences between the spouses arose which resulted in the divorce to the petitioner. Thereafter petitioner filed a suit before Civil Judge, Kharian, seeking a declaration that she was owner of the property.
2. She also prayed for status quo that her possession be not disturbed, which was allowed in the appeal on 9-6-1988. It is further alleged that in spite of pendency of the appeal she was dispossessed therefore she applied for restoration of the possession which was accordingly allowed by the High Court on 23-1-1991. Thereafter respondent No,4, Muzaffar Ahmed, former husband of the petitioner, alongwith others raided the house of the petitioner where petitioner with her brother Khalil-ur-Rehman was present. They were forcibly dispossessed from the house.
3. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there was no dispute with regard to the ownership of tne petitioner. Similarly, she had been put in possession of the house in dispute by tie orders of this Court, therefore, in such circumstances respondent was not competent to dispossess her. Lastly, it was prayed that the respondent be punished for committing contempt of this Court and possession of the premises be restored to her. It was further prayed that a case against the delinquent persons be registered. Report from S.P. Gujrat, was sent for and the same has been received and perused. According to the report, a probe was made by S.F. Gujrat, wherein he learnt that petitioner was dispossessed but her possession was restored by the orders of this Court.
4. Thereafter she rented the house in dispute to the sons of respondent No,5, and subsequently entered into an agreement to sell the house to the tenants for consideration of Rs,1,10,000. Report further containing that the present writ petition has been filed in order to wriggle out of the agreement to sell. According to the report of the S.P. Gujrat, no incident, whereby the petitioner was dispossessed, ever took place. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently denied the said agreement and receiving part payment in lieu thereof.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for the respondent. The crucial question would be if the petitioner had entered into an agreement to sell the house in dispute and executed a deed in lieu thereof. A finding on it cannot be given unless some evidence is recorded which cannot be possible in these proceedings. Therefore, it is directed that petitioner may approach the appropriate Civil Court for redress of her grievance, which would he competent to decide the issue after recording evidence. As far as the prayer that a case against the accused persons be registered is concerned, it is also declined in view of the report submitted by S.P., Gujrat; according to which no such incident of dispossessing the petitioner took place. While disposing of the writ petition, it is directed that in case the petitioner moves an application to S.P. Gujrat, it shall be decided expeditiously after hearing the petitioner. Writ petition is disposed of.