P L D 1995 Supreme Court 572 (PLP)

MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.--Through this Criminal Original petition Gaman and others/petitioners have prayed for initiating contempt proceedings against Muhammad Ali, Naib-Tehsildar, Halqa Jampur, District .Rajanpur, and 8 others on the allegations that while deciding Mutation No.90f afresh Naib-Tehsildar/respondent No.l, on account of connivance with private respondents Nos.2 to 9 had disregarded the order dated 16-5-1994 passed by this Court in Civil Petition for Leave to appeal No.870-L of 1993, whereby Revenue Officers were directed to take into consideration some factors noted in the order- before passing any orders in the aforesaid mutation."

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. We are not persuaded to initiate contempt proceedings against the Revenue officer and other respondents. The Revenue Officer was no party in the writ petition and in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.870-L of 1993. Mutation proceedings are of , summary nature. In the order passed by him in the mutation proceedings, he has made reference to the order of this Court dated 16-9-7994. He has cancelled the mutation on the ground that the sale of the land was nor. for construction purposes and as such was violative of the provisions of Martial Law Regulation

115. The appeal against his order is pending before the competent Court as told by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It seems to us that the present application has maliciously been filed with intent to humiliate and harass the Naib-Tehsildar, opposite-party and to influence the appellate Court seized of appeal against order of Naib-Tehsildw. So, this application is dismissed as being malicious and frivolous, .

3. Before parting with the order we feel constrained to condemn and disapprove the growing tendency on the part of litigants of filing frivolous applications for contempt proceedings under Order XXXIX, Rule 2(3), C.P.C., Contempt of Court Act, 1976 read with Article 204 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, against public servants who in discharge of their official/judicial duties pass orders adversely affecting their interest. The applications are filed with the obvious object to harass, humiliate and drag Government officials in Courts. The vague stay/injunction orders passed by the Courts are also the cause of filing contempt applications under Order XXXIX, Rule (3), C.P.C. in the Civil Courts. We have noted with concern that the Civil Courts while disposing of stay/injunction applications frequently pass "status quo" orders which are often misused by the parties. A party intending to take unlawful possession of disputed property having obtained "status quo" order from Civil Court, in its garb, attempts to dispossess the opposite-party by force. Instances are not wanting where in such a situation the parties take law into their hands and serious offences like murder are committed and then parties file applications for contempt proceedings blaming each other for breach of "status quo" order. We have also noted that the Civil Courts invariably summon Government officials in contempt proceedings under Order XXXIX, Rule 2(3), C.P.C. at the instance of litigants even though those officers/officials were not arrayed as parties in the suit or stay application. In certain cases the Revenue officials are summoned in applications under Order XXXIX, Rule 2(3), C.P.C. who take proceedings relating to preparation/change in Khasra Girdawari, Jamabandis, attestation of mutation, appraisement of produce, demarcation and partition of land in dispute, in performance of their official and legal functions as visualised by the Land Revenue Act or the Tenancy Act. The Revenue Officers/officials are summoned even in matters in which Civil Courts do not have jurisdiction to interfere with the proceedings taken by them. There is a legal bar contained in section 81 of the Land Revenue Act for taking any action against the Revenue Officers in relation to the duties performed by them under the relevant law. Summoning of the Government officials instead of serving useful p disturbs smooth functioning of department concerned. So for the guidance of the subordinate Courts it is hereby laid down:-- "Before issuing stay/injunction orders, Courts must carefully examine and consider the documents relied upon by the parties in proof of title, possession etc., of the property in dispute. In case of doubt, the Court ' ; may appoint Commission for verification of actual position at site. A little care on the part of the Civil Courts would save citizens from untold hardships and also help maintaining public peace and tranquillity. (ii) Status quo orders should not be passed in vague and general terms. It should clearly state as to what extent does it operate. Whether it prohibits interference in one's possession or alienation of property by a party, raising of construction on the property, or change in the status and character of the property pending, decision of case. The stay/injunction must be unequivocal and clear leaving no room for any, ambiguity thereby providing an excuse for its misuse by parties. (iii) Government officials in contempt proceedings initiated at the instance of litigants under Order XXXIX, Rule 2(3), C.P.C. should not be summoned if they were not arrayed as party in the suit or against whom no stay/injunction was issued. The summoning of Government officials in Courts creates problems for the Department concerned; not only the official work suffers but also the Government Officials are unnecessarily dragged in the Courts._ Needless to say that these guidelines are binding on all the Courts, under Article 187 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973,1 and serious view of violation thereof shall be taken. M,B.A./G-5211/S Order accordingly.