Mian Sohaib-ur-Rehman vs Muhammad Bashir S — 2025 PCrLJ 1931 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.

Mian Sohaib-ur-Rehman VS Muhammad Bashir S. 7---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---Criminal revision, being devoid of any force, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Mian Sohaib-ur-Rehman vs Muhammad Bashir S — 2025 PCrLJ 1931 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PCRLJ