Muhammad Afzal vs State Ss — 2025 PCrLJ 1919 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Muhammad Afzal VS State Ss. 3 & 7---Complaint---Eviction and mode of recovery as an interim relief passed in a complaint under S.7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005---Possession orders passed as interim relief, invalidity of---Specificity and proper procedural consideration, lack of---Scope and effect---Interim relief, grant of---Stage---"During trial", meaning of---Petitioner ( accused ) challenged an order handed down by the Trial Court whereby, in pursuance of inquiry report of SHO, he (petitioner) had been directed to hand over the possession of one room in the subject property to the respondent /complainant---Plea of the petitioner / accused was that impugned order was not sustainable in law as under the provisions of S.7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 (' the Act 2005'), the possession cannot be restored to the complainant as an interim relief before trial---Whether power of interim relief (to put the owner / occupier) in possession was enshrined in S.7 of the Act 2005---Held: Grant of interim relief within meaning of S.7(1) of the Act 2005 was subject to condition "during the trial"---The said stage is the condition precedent---The use of word by legislature "during the trial" in S.7(1) of the Act 2005 is of significance---The expression "during the trial" is not as common sense assumes---In the present case, records revealed that before delivery of copies to the accused and framing of charge, the Trial Court passed the impugned order---The procedural stage, as envisaged under the Act 2005 being a special law, was altogether disregarded prior to the issuance of the impugned order---When the law prescribes a specific manner for performing a particular act, it must be carried out in that prescribed manner alone and not otherwise---Execution or implementation constitutes the process through which a judicial order is enforced, thereby enabling the successful party to derive the intended benefit from such order---While it is not in dispute that the complainant was the uncle of the accused, the familial relationship stood overshadowed by the severity of the disputes, which were of such a grave nature that they could not be resolved within the family or the local community, ultimately necessitating judicial intervention---Significantly, the complainant/respondent had explicitly alleged in the complaint that the accused/petitioner had extended threats of murder---However, perusal of the complaint did not reveal how many rooms existed in the house in question, nor whether any room had an independent or direct access to the street---The police report was also silent on these critical particulars---Likewise, the cursory evidence adduced by respondent /complainant did not specify either the number of rooms or the existence of any room with a direct approach to the passage---In said context, the direction to hand over possession of "one room" in the subject property appeared inconsistent with both the legal framework and the factual assertions made in the private complaint as well as the cursory evidence on record---Furthermore, the impugned order stated that, in the event of non-compliance by the petitioner/accused, the concerned Station House Officer (SHO) shall effect possession in favour of the complainant, however, in the absence of a precise identification of the room-in-question, such a direction effectively delegated to the law enforcement agency the judicial function of specifying which room was to be handed over-an action which was legally impermissible---Accordingly, the directive to implement the handing over of possession became incapable of execution due to lack of specificity and judicial certainty---Said portion of the impugned order, being devoid of essential judicial safeguards and precision, was liable to be set aside even on this singular ground---High Court set-aside the impugned order for suffering from material illegality and procedural irregularity, rendering it unsustainable in the eye of law---Criminal revision, filed by accused, was allowed accordingly.

Muhammad Afzal vs State Ss — 2025 PCrLJ 1919 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PCRLJ