Summary: (Against the judgment dated 27.01.2023 passed by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi in IInd Appeal No. 132 of 2019). (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 100 & O.XVII R. 3---Illegal Dispossession Act (XI of 2005), S. 3---Illegal dispossession---Complaint, dismissal of---Original civil jurisdiction also invoked by filing a suit---Concurrent dismissal of suit and appeals---Petitioner seeking repeated adjournments and failing to produce evidence---Closure of evidence---Court may proceed notwithstanding either party fails to produce evidence---Petitioner filed a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, which was dismissed by the district court---Subsequently, petitioner instituted a civil suit which was also dismissed by the Trial Court---The petitioner then filed appeal before the first appellate court which was also dismissed---A second appeal under section 100, C.P.C. was filed before the High Court which was also dismissed---Two forums of different jurisdiction concluded against the petitioner i.e. complaint under provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 which was dismissed followed by dismissal of suit on the original side along with first appeal and second appeal accordingly---In the present petition the petitioner attempted to take refuge under the purported misapplication of the provisions of Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. by the courts below by stating that the trial court failed to record evidence of the petitioner---Held: The judgment of the trial court was passed after dismissal of the adjournment application---The application was dismissed after recording reasons that on the previous date (previous to the dismissal of last adjournment application) the petitioner also moved an adjournment application which was allowed as a last chance, despite availing earlier opportunities---On the fateful date neither the petitioner being plaintiff in the suit nor his counsel appeared but an adjournment application was sent stating that the petitioner was suffering from fever---On the same day after dismissal of the adjournment application the judgment was announced and the suit of the petitioner was dismissed being devoid of any evidence---The petitioner being aggrieved of decision under Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. preferred an appeal but did not take ground that under the given circumstances Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. was misapplied---Scope of section 100, C.P.C. and that too against the concurrent findings of the original civil court and the first appellate court was limited---Supreme Court did not interfere in the concurrent findings of three courts below who had recorded the non-serious attitude of the petitioner in recording the evidence on a number of occasions, particularly when the petitioner had failed to point out if he had categorically taken this ground before the two appellate forums below---Petition was dismissed, in circumstances, and leave was refused. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.XVII, R. 3---Court may proceed notwithstanding either party fails to produce evidence---Scope---Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. is triggered when any party fails to produce evidence and the court in that eventuality may, notwithstanding such default, proceed to decide the suit forthwith. (c) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 185(3)---Raising a new ground before the Supreme Court which was neither pleaded in first appeal nor in the second appeal---Scope---A new ground is not open for indulgence before the Supreme Court under its appellate jurisdiction when such a ground was nowhere pleaded either in the first appeal or in the second appeal. Ch. A. Rasheed, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Muhammad Aziz Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and K.A. Wahab, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 25th March, 2025.

Summary: (Against the judgment dated 30.03.2021 of learned single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench Rawalpindi in Cr.A. No. 588 of 2019). Illegal Dispossession Act (XI of 2005)--- ----Ss.3, 4, 7 & 8---Illegal dispossession---Re-appraisal of evidence---Petition against acquittal---Co-owner---Accused was a co-owner in property in question and High Court had acquitted him of the charge---Validity--- Co-owner is deemed to be in constructive possession of every inch of joint holding unless a formal partition has been effected---Jurisprudence on co-ownership consistently affirms that one co-owner cannot allege dispossession at the hands of another without establishing exclusive possession through partition proceedings---Provision of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 is not confined to cases involving land grabbers or Qabza Mafia but extends to any person who has been illegally dispossessed from immovable property, however it is applicable only where there is clear evidence of unlawful dispossession---In cases where parties are co-owners, question of forcible dispossession does not arise unless partition proceedings have concluded and exclusive ownership is established---Acquitted accused enjoys a double presumption of innocence---Appellate Court should exercise restraint in overturning an acquittal unless the judgment is manifestly perverse, arbitrary, or suffers from a glaring misreading or non-reading of material evidence---Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment of acquittal passed in faovur of accused---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused. Shaikh Muhammad Naseem v. Mst. Farida Gul 2016 SCMR 1931; Niaz Ahmed v. Aijaz Ahmed PLD 2024 SC 1152 and Muhammad Mansha Kausar v. Muhammad Asghar and others 2003 SCMR 477 rel. Muhammad Ilyas Siddiqi, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Irfan Zia, Addl. Prosecutor General for the State. Date of hearing: 19th February, 2025.