Cr.Acq.A. 644/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi

Sindh High Court · 2025 · Before Shamsuddin Abbasi

Judge, Karachi South, in ID Complaint No.636 of 2019 under Section 3/4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 (the “Act of 2005”) whereby the trial Court acquitted the respondents No.1 and 2 of the charge. Appellant Shahbaz Ahmed, owner of ground plus three floors constructed on plot No.R-1844-A, Sheet 2, Gali No.28, Azam Basti, Karachi, (the “Subject Property”) sold out the ground floor to the Respondent No.1 Taj Bahadur pursuant to sale agreement dated 16.12.2014 while second and third floors rented out to tenants. In February, 2019, when the appellant visited the building to collect rent found accused/Respondents No.1 and 2 raising construction on the roof of third floor. After preferring applications to the concerned SHO, he made subject ID complaint. The trial Court after framing charge, recording evidence and hearing the parties acquitted the Respondents of the charge vide Judgment impugned herein. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence of the complainant and his 2 witnesses regarding illegal dispossession and construction on the roof of third floor. He further submitted that in December, 2014 the Appellant and Respondent No.1 inked a sale agreement exclusively for the ground floor of the subject property upon payment of sale consideration in installments and some amount still unpaid. He further submitted that alleged sale agreement dated 20.09.2016, exhibit 10-A, produced by the accused/respondent No.1 in his evidence is in direct conflict with the registered title documents while in law on the basis of solitary sale agreement no occupation and construction can be made/raised. According to him the impugned Judgment is based on misreading and wrong appreciation of evidence available on record. Learned counsel for the respondents/accused and APG supported the impugned Judgment on premise that the appellant and Respondent No.1 entered into a sale agreement dated 16.09.2016 in respect of ground floor plus roof of third floor of the subject property and despite receiving entire consideration the appellant has failed to execute the sublease in his favor. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Respondents No.1 and 2, APG and perused the material available on record. The appellant denied the execution of sale agreement dated 16.09.2016 regarding sale and purchase of ground floor and roof of third floor and whole controversy revolves upon authenticity or otherwise of the said agreement. Appellant produced and build up his case on execution of sale agreement entered in December, 2014 between the parties regarding sale and purchase of ground floor of the subject property only. However, during trial none of the parties moved application before the trial Court in terms of Article 84 of the Qanun- e-Shahadat Order, 1984, for referring the admitted and disputed 3 signatures of the appellant on the subsequent sale agreement to the handwriting expert. In law, the trial Court is itself competent to undertake such exercise.

Opening of the judgment. Loading the full judgment on LexPK…