Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SHAUKAT ALI And Another VS Respondent: MUHAMMAD YUSUF SHAH And Other
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Mian Burhanuddin Khan, Muhammad Afzal Zullah Title: SHAUKAT ALI And Another vs MUHAMMAD YUSUF SHAH And Other Case No.:Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 351-R of 1984 Writ Petition No. 366 of
1983 Date of Judgment:1986-06-30 Reported As: 1986 SCMR 1582 Result: Leave refused Judgment ORDER MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 27-10- 1984 of the Lahore High Court; whereby a writ petition arising out of proceedings under section 145, Cr.P. C. Filed by the petitioners, was dismissed. The petitioners had alleged in an undated complaint dispossession from the property in dispute. Although the Police Officer who investigated it ' the matter later on deposed that there was no apprehension of breach of piece yet he reported the matter to the Magistrate who after having passed preliminary order, subsequently, in the final order directed restoration of possession to the petitioners. On revision filed by the respondent-side a learned Additional Sessions Judge remanded the case. On remand the learned Magistrate repeated the earlier order. The respondents again filed a revision petition which was accepted with a finding that there was no apprehension of breach of piece and the foundation for action under section 145 was lacking, the learned Magistrate should not have taken any action there under. The respondents then filed a writ petition which having been dismissed with the affirmation of findings of the revisional Court, the petitioners have now sought leave to appeal. The case stands concluded by the findings of the fact by the revisional Court and the High Court that there was no apprehension of breach of piece. This point is supported, amongst other elements, in the case by the testimony of the Investigating Officer who stated that there was no apprehension of breach of piece. That being so, the learned Magistrate should not have acted under section 145, Cr.P.C. And the civil litigation between the parties should have been allowed to
---
## Page 2
determine the dispute between them. This petition has no force and accordingly is dismissed as frivolous with costs of the respondents caveators which are fixed at Rs.1,000.