Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Miscellaneous Petition No. 21 of 1985 in Criminal Revision No. 49 of 1985, decided on 20th March, 1985.
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898); S. 145‑‑Possession of disputed property regulated by order of a Single Judge of High Court‑‑Subsequently property attached by order of another Judge of same High Court‑‑Petition for leave to appear‑Both matters, Civil Revision and Criminal Revision, arising out of same proceedings under S. 145, Cr.P.C. having been ordered to be heard together in High Court, subsequent order of attachment suspended by Supreme Court with observation that it would be open to High Court to apply its independent mind to both matters and give an independent decision.
Shah Muhammad v. Haq Nawaz and another P L D 1970 S C 470 upheld.
Zakiuddin Pal, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
Nisar Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 20th March, 1985.
This is a case under section 145, Cr.P.C. relying on the case of Shah Muhammad v. Haq Nawaz and another P L D 1970 S C 470 the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the possession of the property in dispute having been regulated by the learned Single Judge of High Court by his order, dated 5‑1‑1985, the order of attachment of the same property by another learned Single Judge of the same High Court passed subsequently on 27‑1‑1985, was not justified. He, therefore, prays that possession of the property in question should be restored to the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, points out that two matters namely "Civil Revision" and "Criminal Revision" arising out of proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. have been ordered to be heard together, therefore, no order should be passed at this stage against an interim order passed by the High Court.
3. After having considered the matter I feel that the judgment in the case of Shah Muhammad (supra) would govern the situation. It is, however, open to the High Court to apply its independent mind to the two matters and give an independent decision. The interim order, dated 27‑1‑1985 is suspended and the property in dispute if attached by the Tehsildar, should be restored to the person from whom the possession was taken.
M. I. Order accordingly.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer