' Through this Constitutional petition the petitioner has assailed the legality of the order dated 1-8- 1989 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, directing that possession of the suit property be handed over to Nawab Din respondent No, 1.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the land measuring 120 Kanals was allotted to Lal Din father of the petitioner. The allottee appointed Nawab Din, respondent No,1 as his general attorney to manage the land. The power of attorney was subsequently cancelled in the year 1971. On the spot the land was being cultivated through tenants. After the death of the petitioner's father the petitioner tried to obtain share of produce of the land which led to a dispute between the petitioner and respondent No,
1. Resultantly proceedings under section 145 of the Cr.P.C. Were initiated at the instance of the petitioner in which the Assistant Commissioner passed an order appointing a Superdar for managing the land. The said order was challenged in revision which was partly accepted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 27-3-1989. He set aside the order regarding appointment of the Superdar. The petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction in the Civil Court which was dismissed for non-prosecution and the application for restoration of the suit was also dismissed. At present, an appeal against the dismissal of the suit for non-prosecution is pending in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Mianwali.
3. Keeping in view the fact that the matter was sub judice before the Civil Court, the learned A.C.
Dropped the proceedings under section 145 of the Cr.P.C. The order passed by the A.C. In this respect was challenged by A respondent No, 1 by way of revision in which the learned Additional Sessions Judge passed the impugned order directing restoration of possession to Nawab Din, respondent No, 1.
4. Admittedly, the petitioner is in physical possession of the disputed land in pursuance of the order passed by this Court on 28-8-1989. The question as to who is legally entitled either to obtain possession or remain in occupation B of the land can appropriately be decided by the Civil Court after recording evidence of the parties. The leaned counsel appearing for respondent No, 1 has no objection if the impugned order dated 1-8-1989 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is set aside and the appellate Court directed to decide the appeal expeditiously within a short period.
5. In this view of the matter, this petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 1-8-1989 is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. I am informed that the appeal is pending in the Court of Mr. Saifur-Rehman, Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali, and is fixed for hearing on 16-11-1992.
6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge is directed to decide the appeal on the date already fixed or on any other date within a period of two months. The petition is allowed with the above direction, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.