2025 P Cr. L J 1931
عبوری راحت-- ملزم سے شکایت کنندہ کو متنازعہ جائیداد کی ملکیت کی بحالی-- ملکیت کی بازیابی ، دائرہ کار کی تلاش ، قانون کی متعلقہ دفعات کی عدم موجودگی ، عدالت کی طرف سے درخواست کی عدم موجودگی---دائرہ کار-- عدالت کا باضابطہ کام بننے کا دائرہ کار متنازعہ پلاٹ کا قبضہ غیر قانونی قبضہ ایکٹ ، 2005 کے S.7 کی دفعات کے تحت ٹرائل کورٹ کے حکم کی تعمیل میں ضمانت کے ذریعے شکایت کنندگان کے حوالے کیا گیا تھا ۔ بعد میں ، مقدمے کی سماعت کے دوران ابھی تک تقریبا three تین ماہ کی تاخیر کے ساتھ ، ملزم (درخواست گزار) کے بھائی کی طرف سے درخواست دائر کی گئی تھی کہ قبضہ اسے بحال کیا جائے ۔-- درخواست گزار کا دعوی/موقف یہ تھا کہ حقیقت میں اس کے پاس متنازعہ پلاٹ تھا اور ضمانت دار نے غلط طریقے سے قبضہ شکایت کنندگان کے حوالے کر دیا تھا ۔ درخواست گزار نے نظر ثانی دائر کی کیونکہ اس کی مذکورہ درخواست ٹرائل کورٹ نے مسترد کر دی تھی-- - ضمانت دہندہ کی رپورٹ سے انکشاف ہوا کہ کہیں بھی اس نے (ضمانت دہندہ) نے یہ ذکر نہیں کیا کہ پلاٹ میں تنازعہ درخواست گزار کی ملکیت تھا اور اس کے پاس تھا ، بلکہ کارروائی آسانی سے انجام دی گئی تھی اور قبضہ بغیر کسی مزاحمت یا جوابی دعوے کے شکایت کنندہ کے حوالے کردیا گیا تھا ۔ اس طرح ، جس دن درخواست گزار نے ٹرائل کورٹ کا رخ کیا تھا ، اس دن ضمانت نے پہلے ہی جگہ پر پلاٹ کے شکایت کنندہ کو خالی قبضہ سونپ دیا تھا ۔ درخواست گزار سے پوچھ گچھ کے باوجود ، عدالت کے سامنے غیر قانونی قبضہ ایکٹ ، 2005 کی متعلقہ دفعات کے ذریعے اپنے موقف کا جواز پیش کرنے میں ناکام رہا ، یا قانون کی کسی بھی شق کا ذکر کرکے جس کے تحت درخواست گزار کو اپنی درخواست کے فیصلے کے لیے درخواست دائر کرنے کا اختیار دیا گیا تھا جس کا فیصلہ شکایت کے زیر التواء ہونے کے دوران بھی نہیں ہوا تھا-ایک بار شکایت کا فیصلہ ہونے کے بعد (جس کے نتیجے میں مقدمے کی سماعت میں ہوا) درخواست گزار کو آٹھ سال قبل باضابطہ طور پر شکایت کا فیصلہ کرنے کا اختیار نہیں دیا گیا تھا ۔ فوجداری ضابطہ اخلاق ، 1898 کے S.369 کے تحت ، جب کوئی عدالت اپنے فیصلے پر دستخط کر چکی ہو تو ، اس میں تبدیلی یا اس کا جائزہ نہیں لے گی ، سوائے اس کے کہ کسی علمی غلطی کو درست کیا جائے ۔ ہائی کورٹ سمیت کوئی بھی عدالت فوجداری دائرہ اختیار میں منظور کردہ اپنے حکم کا جائزہ نہیں لے سکتی کیونکہ عدالت اس کے منظور ہونے اور اس حکم پر دستخط کرنے کے بعد فنکٹس آفس بن جائے گی ۔
----S. 7 Illegal Dispossession Act 2005---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.369---Interim relief---Restoration of possession of disputed property to the complainant from the accused---Retrieval of possession, seeking of---Scope---Relevant provision(s) of law, absence of---Entertaining of a prayer by the Court---Scope---Court becoming functus officio---Scope---Possession of plot-in-dispute was handed over to the complainants through bailiff in compliance of the order of the Trial Court under provisions of S.7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005; later, during the trial yet with the delay of almost three months, a petition was moved by brother of the accused (petitioner) praying that the possession be restored to him---Claim /stance of the petitioner was that he was in fact in possession of plot-in-dispute and bailiff had wrongly handed over the possession to complainants---Petitioner filed revision as his said application was dismissed by the Trial Court---Validity---Report of bailiff revealed that nowhere he (bailiff) mentioned that plot-in-dispute was owned and possessed by the petitioner, rather the proceedings were smoothly conducted and possession was handed over to the complainant without any resistance or counter claim agitated at the spot---Thus, the bailiff, on the day petitioner moved the Trial Court, had already handed over the vacant possession to the complainant of the plot at the spot---Petitioner, in spite of being queried, failed before the Court to justify his stance through relevant provision of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, or by mentioning any provision of law under which the petitioner was empowered to file petition for the decision of his application which was not even decided during the pendency of complaint---Once complaint was decided (which though resulted into acquittal) the Trial Court became functus officio and was not empowered to decide the grievance of the petitioner---Pertinently, the petitioner also approached High Court with a considerable delay after his application had been decided about eight years ago---Court becomes functus officio after it passes and signs any order---Under S.369 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, no Court when it has signed its judgment, will alter or review the same, except to correct a clerical error---No court including High Court can review its order passed in criminal jurisdiction as the Court would become functus officio after it has passed and signed the order--- JUDGMENT.
.................
.---Through this criminal revision petition filed under section 439 read with section 561-A Cr.P.C., Mian Sohaib ul Rehman (petitioner) seeks setting aside the order dated 29.01.2019 passed by the Mr. Muhammad Naeem Sheikh, Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Lahore who was pleased to dismiss the application for restoration of possession of plot filed by the petitioner.
2. Arguments heard and record perused.
3. Perusal of record reveals that Muhammad Bashir along with Fakir Muhammad filed complaint on 13.12.2005 under section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 and during the proceedings of the complaint, he also filed an application under section 7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 on 12.06.2006 for the restoration of possession of property. The said application was accepted vide order dated 21.07.2006 and bailiff handed over the vacant possession of the plot to Muhammad Bashir in compliance of the court order. The report of bailiff is very much relevant in this regard as nowhere bailiff mentioned in his report that plot in dispute was owned and possessed by present petitioner Mian Sohaib ur Rehman rather the proceedings were smoothly conducted and possession was handed over to Muhammad Bashir without any resistance or counter claim agitated at the spot. The petitioner on 29.07.2006 filed application under section 203 Cr.P.C. and he made a prayer that the complaint filed by Muhammad Bashir (respondent No.1) be dismissed and order dated 21.07.2006 whereby the order for the restoration of possession was made be suspended till the final decision of the application whereas bailiff on the day of filing of application had already handed over the vacant possession to the complainant of the plot at the spot. The complaint ultimately met with the fate of acquittal of accused vide judgment dated 20.07.2011 and till that day, neither said application was decided which had become infructuous because compliance of the court order was made nor it was agitated to be decided in accordance with law and after the acquittal made on 20.07.2011, the petitioner with the delay of almost three months on 05.10.2011 filed application for the restoration of possession with the claim that he was in fact in possession of land and bailiff wrongly handed over the possession to complainants but petitioner has failed to justify his stance through relevant provision of law before the court because inspite of query, the learned counsel for the petitioner has miserably failed to mention any provision of law under which the petitioner was empowered to file petition for the decision of application which was not decided during the pendency of complaint filed under section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005.
4. Furthermore, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon document No.7116, Book No.1, Volume No.403 dated 27.07.2004 on the basis of which he is claiming himself to be owner of the land in dispute which was never in possession of Mian Maqsood Ahmed (respondent/accused in complaint) but it is crystal clear from record that Mst. Almas Fakhra, etc. being the legal heirs of Mian Muhammad Azam have filed suit regarding cancellation of said sale deed which is pending since 2007 against petitioner and Mian Maqsood Ahmad who is real brother of present petitioner. Both were impleaded as defendants in the titled suit in which present petitioner Mian Shoaib ur Rehman through filing of written statement mentioned that he has sold 10 marlas land to someone else and handed over vacant possession to that person. During the pendency of suit for cancellation of document the petitioner was not entitled to ask criminal court for the restoration of possession and once complaint was decided which resulted into acquittal vide order dated 20.07.2011 the trial court become functus officio and was not empowered to decide the grievance of the petitioner who get his application decided in the year 2019 and approached this Court with the considerable delay. Reference in this regard can be made to the case reported as Ali Kuli Amin Ud Din v. Muhammad Zafar and others (2012 PCr.LJ 1136) wherein hon'ble court held as under
S.369. Court not to alter judgment. Scope. Court becomes functus officio after it passes and signs any order. No court including High Court can review its order passed in criminal jurisdiction.
Similar view was taken in the case reported as Iqbal v. The State and another (2001 PCr.LJ 1634). The relevant portion is reproduced below for reference sake:-
No Court when it had signed its judgment, would alter or review the same, except to correct a clerical error. High Court could not review its own order passed in the criminal jurisdiction as the Court would become functus officio after it had passed and signed the order.
5. In view of above discussion, instant criminal revision being devoid of any force is hereby dismissed.
Criminal Revision No. 10045 of 2019
Mian Sohaib-ur-REhman Versus Muhammad Bashir
0 Comments