Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 647 of 1973, decided on 15th November 1973.

-----‑S. 145‑Dispute on possession of immovable property‑Injunc tion‑Stay order‑Possession of a party regulated by interim or permanent order of civil Court‑Proceedings under S. 145 out of question‑Subsequent vacation of stay order by civil Court‑Not tantamount to revival of criminal proceedings terminated on issue of civil Court's stay order‑Proceedings could not be revived with retrospective effect.

Shah Muhammad v. Haq Nawaz and another P L D 1970 S C 470 rel.

This revision petition has been forwarded by Mr. Muhammad Saeed Akhtar. Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur for proper orders. The petitioner Asghar Bashir was in possession of a shop in Kasur but was dispossessed by Hassan Khan respondent. He filed an application under section 145, Cr. P. C. before the Magistrate Ist Class, Kasur alleging that there was an imminent danger of breach of peace because of the dispute over the shop between the parties. The learned Magistrate passed a conditional order of attachment on 10‑4‑1972. The respondent had filed a civil suit for injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering in his possession of the same shop. The Civil Judge Ist Class, Kasur issued a stay order on 14‑3‑1972. The existence of the stay order was brought to the notice of the learned Magistrate who dismissed the application under section 145, Cr. P. C. and also vacated the conditional order of attachment on 19‑6‑1972.

2. The learned Civil Judge later on 13‑6‑1972 observed that Hassan Khan who was the pLalntiff before him could not be dispossessed forcibly or otherwise except in due course of law and the petitioner was at liberty to take legal proceedings in the matter. The stay order was ultimately vacated on 15‑2‑1973. The petitioner filed a revision petition against the dismissal of his application under section 145, Cr. P. C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the learned Magistrate was not justified in dismissing the application under section 145, Cr. P. C. and vacating the conditional order of attachment. It wag observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the Civil Judge had passed only an 4nterim order and had clarified it on 13‑6‑1972 by observing that the petitioner was at liberty to take any legal proceedings in the matter. This, according to the learned Additional Sessions Judge meant that the learned Civil Judge had permitted the petitioner to continue the proceedings before ire Magistrate under section 145, Cr. P. C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also observed that since the learned Civil Judge had vacated the earlier orders of stay on 15‑2‑1973 the proceedings under the Criminal, Procedure Code stood revived.

3. In my view the learned Additional Sessions Judge took an erroneous view of the law. The stay order was in existence on 19‑6‑1972 when the Magistrate passed his orders. The fact that the learned Civil Judge had, made a vague and general observation that the petitioner was free to take any legal proceedings did not in any way modify the pronouncement of law made by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Shah Muhammad v. Haq Nawaz and another (P L D 1970 S C 470). This was a case where an ad interim injunction had been issued by the civil Court and it was during the operation of this order that the Additional District Magistrate had passed an order under section 145, Cr. P. C. The Supreme Court held that the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate was clearly illegal. It is now established that whenever a civil Court regulates the possession of a party by an interim or a permanent order, proceedings under section 145, Cr. P. C. are out of question. The vacation of the stay order of the Civil Judge on 15‑2‑1973 does not tantamount to the revival of the criminal proceedings which were terminated in the circumstances existing at the relevant time. There could not be any revival of any proceedings with retrospective effect because of any order that the Civil Judge bad passed. The vacation of the stay order by the Civil Judge may have cleared the way for further proceedings if the circumstances so warrant but certainly it has not revived the proceedings which have been properly terminated.

4. In view of the above discussion the revision is dismissed.

Revision not allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.