Pakistan Case Law← Search
1970 SCMR 592

MUHAMMAD BOOTA AND 12 Others vs Ch. FAIZ MUHAMMAD AND 8 Other

Citation1970 SCMR 592
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 306 of 1969 Cr. Ref. No. 116
Date1970-01-29
Judge(s)Waheeduddin Ahmad, Muhammad Yaqub Ali Khan
ResultPetition dismissed

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.-Faiz Mohammad, respondent, moved an application under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of the Additional District Magistrate, Rahimyar Khan, on the assertion that he was wrongly dispossessed of two squares of land by the petitioners herein.

2. A protracted inquiry was held and eventually an order in his favour was passed on 27-11-1962 declaring that he had been illegally dispossessed by the petitioners and that he was entitled to recover possession. Thereafter the respondent No. 1 moved successive applications for implementation of the order of the 27th November 1962, but without any success. In the meantime, the petitioners filed a civil suit and obtained an injunction on appeal from the Court of the District Judge which was eventually vacated by the High Court. However, the Additional District Magistrate, when moved again by the respondent No. 1 for delivery of possession, dismissed the application for the reason that the order dated the 27th November 1962, was only declaratory and the identity of the land was not specified in it.

3. On hearing learned counsel we find no reason to differ with the view formed by the Sessions Judge and affirmed by the High Court. The order dated the 27th November 1962, had attained finality and under the Code of Criminal Procedure the Additional District Magistrate did not have the jurisdiction to review it. The conclusion reached by him that the order was declaratory in nature was also erroneous inasmuch as under section 145 the Court is required to declare which of the parties before it, is entitled to remain in possession. Similarly, the identity of the land in dispute was fully set out in the application made by respondent No. 1 as well as in the preliminary order passed under subsection (1) of section 145.

Cited by 3 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
Disclaimer·Privacy·Terms·Search