JUDGMENT . RIAZ HUSSAIN, J. - The facts forming the background of this petition that the petitioner, alongwith Mulazim Hussain and Khadim Hussain, purchased the land measuring I6 marlas vide Mutation No. 3887 dated 16.3.1972 from Muhammad Hayat for a consideration of Rs. 3000/-. He Constructed a house to the extent of 10 marlas. Subsequently, he, alongwith others, purchased another land measuring 4 Marlas from one Sardar Shah for passage, vide registered deed No. 1007 dated 27.5.1980. This land became an integral part of the aforesaid house. Respondent No. 3, at the instance of one Syed Akbar Husain, informed respondent No. 1 on 28.9.1994 that the petitioner, alongwith others, had taken possession of a thoroughfare. Respondent No. 1 called the report from the revenue staff. After the perusal of that report, he on 24.10. 1994, ordered that the aforesaid thoroughfare shall be opened for all and sunday and tha or obstacles shall be removed therefrom.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel that respondent No. 1 did not hear the petitioner while passing the impugned order. Lie adds that he filed a declaratoiy suit In the civil Court, which is a pending for decision therein and that the impugned order was also challenged in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh, by filing an appeal, which was, however, dismissed.
3. I have carefully attended to the arguments of the learned counsel.
4. I am afraid that this petition is not maintainable for two-did reasons; first that the petitioner has already availed of an adequate remedy by filing a declaratory suit, which is still pending for decision an second that the matter involves factual controversy. The plea of the learned counsel that the impugned order was not assailable in the civil Court was devoid of force for the reason that if the impugned order was based on mala tides, there was no bar in challenging the same in that Court.. For the facility of reference, Sub-section (3) of Section 142 Cr.P.C, is reproduced below: "No suit shall lie in respect of anything done in good faith by a magistrate under this section."
Since the main plank of the arguments of the learned counsel is that the impugned order was mala fide, there was no bar in assailing the same in the civil Court. -Further from the perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of being heard.
For the foregoing reason, this petition is devoid of any force and is dismissed in limine.