Muhammad Qasim V. Ahsan Raza and 2 others,
PCrLJ 2015 907 · Balochistan High Court
This case involved a dispute over a property in Quetta housing a school, where the original complainant, Muhammad Naqi, had filed a case under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, alleging he was forcibly dispossessed by Ahsan Raza. Before the case could proceed to trial, Muhammad Qasim tried to have himself added as a co-complainant, claiming joint ownership of the property. The trial court repeatedly refused to include him and eventually allowed Naqi to withdraw his complaint after Naqi's lawyer said he did not intend to pursue the case and had no evidence to offer, with the court also noting the dispute seemed civil in nature. Qasim challenged this refusal, and after several rounds of litigation, including a Supreme Court remand, the matter came back to the Balochistan High Court.
The High Court found that Qasim's original complaint lacked essential details like witness names and a summary of evidence, and there was no proof the trial court had failed to summon witnesses despite being given proper information. The court held that the trial judge, despite poor drafting, had reached the right outcome by dismissing the complaint for lack of merit, though technically an order of acquittal should have been recorded for the accused. The High Court upheld the dismissal and acquittal, and separately directed the provincial government to look into the affairs of the school to protect the children studying there. This case clarifies procedural requirements for complaints under the Illegal Dispossession Act and reinforces that courts must properly record acquittals when dismissing such complaints.
یہ مقدمہ کوئٹہ میں واقع ایک اسکول کی عمارت سے متعلق زمین کے تنازع کا تھا، جس میں اصل مدعی محمد نقی نے غیر قانونی قبضہ ایکٹ 2005 کے تحت مقدمہ دائر کیا تھا اور الزام لگایا تھا کہ احسن رضا نے زبردستی اسے قبضے سے بے دخل کر دیا ہے۔ مقدمے کی سماعت شروع ہونے سے پہلے ہی محمد قاسم نے خود کو شریک مدعی کے طور پر شامل کروانے کی کوشش کی، اس دعوے کے ساتھ کہ وہ بھی اس جائیداد کا مشترکہ مالک ہے۔ ٹرائل کورٹ نے بار بار اسے شامل کرنے سے انکار کیا اور بالآخر نقی کو اپنی شکایت واپس لینے کی اجازت دے دی، جب نقی کے وکیل نے کہا کہ وہ مقدمے کی پیروی نہیں کرنا چاہتے اور ان کے پاس پیش کرنے کے لیے کوئی شواہد نہیں ہیں۔ عدالت نے یہ بھی نوٹ کیا کہ یہ تنازع بظاہر دیوانی نوعیت کا معلوم ہوتا ہے۔
قاسم نے اس انکار کو چیلنج کیا، اور کئی مراحل کی قانونی کارروائی کے بعد، جن میں سپریم کورٹ