' This I.-C.A. Arises out of the order dated 25-5-2004, passed by the learned Single Judge in Chambers of this Court passed in a Writ Petition No.1147 of 2004.
2. Facts giving rise to the present writ petition are to the effect that one Muhammad Naeem Siddiqui respondent No.2 (herein) had moved an application to D.C. Islamabad for sealing the house in dispute. The D.C. Directed Assistant Commissioner (City)/respbndent No.1 to take action in accordance with law. The said application was marked to S.H.O. Police Station Margallah for report and the said S.H.O. Has entrusted the same to one Muhammad Aslam A.S.I. Who submitted his report on 18-3:2004 and on receipt of said report, respondent No.1 initiated proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. And sealed the house. The writ petitioner/appellant had challenged these proceedings on the ground that a civil litigation between the parties before Civil Court was sub judice with regard to the said house and in view of civil proceedings, proceedings under section 145; Cr.P.C. Could not be initiated or continued.
3. Learned Single Judge in Chambers has disposed of the writ petition with the observation that respondent No.1 after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties and producing the record/evidence will decide the matter in accordance with law.
4. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
5. The matter in issue in the said writ petition pertains to section 145, Cr.P.C. Which reads as under:- - "This section empowers a Magistrate that whenever a Magistrate of the first class is satisfied from a police report or other -information that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists concerning any land or water or the boundaries thereof, within the local limits of his jurisdiction, he shall make an order in writing, stating the grounds of his being so satisfied, and requiring the parties concerned in such dispute to attend his Court in person or by pleader, within a time to be fixed by such ' Magistrate, and to put in written statements of their respective claims as respects the fact of actual possession of the subject of dispute."
6. In the instant case, Assistant Commissioner had issued the process to parties to appear in the Court to face the trial under the law. From the above, it reveals that proceedings or any order passed by the Magistrate is revisable before next higher Court through a revision.
7. Proviso to subsection 2 of section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 provides that no appeal will be available or competent before a Bench of two or more Judges of a High Court from an order made by a Single Judge of that Court in a Constitutional petition, if such petition arises out of "any proceedings" in which the law applicable provided for at least one appeal or one revision or one review to any Court, Tribunal or authority against the original order. In this context, reference can be made to the cases of Mst. Karim Bibi v. Hussain Bux (PLD 1984 SC 344) and Muhammad Abdullah reported as (PLD 1985 SC 107).
8. Learned counsel for the appellant when confronted with the above legal aspect of the case as well as the dictum laid down by the apex Court in the above referred cases, has drawn our attention to the case of Nawazul Haq Chauhan v. The State (2003 SCM R 1597) but in that case, too, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in following the dictum laid down in Mst. Karim Bibi's case (supra), has observed that I.-C.A. Against a judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, quashing the F.I.R., was not maintainable.
9. For the foregoing reasons, we see no force in this appeal which is dismissed in limine.
I.-