1985 PLP 1530 (SCMR)

NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑By this petition Sher Muhammad wants this Court to punish the respondents for committing contempt of this Court for having disobeyed and violated its order dated 12‑3‑1985. The last‑mentioned order was passed in Civil Petition No. 203‑R of 1985 brought by Noor Elahi (respondent No. 1 herein) against Sher Muhammad (petitioner herein), wherein he had challenged the order of ejectment passed against him by the Rent Controller, Attock which was affirmed on appeal by the Additional District Judge and not interfered with, on his writ petition, by the Rawalpindi Bench of the Lahore High Court. The said petition too was dismissed by this Court on 12‑3‑1985, but by the consent of the parties Noor Elahi was allowed time upto 31‑3‑1985 to retain possession of the shops in his possession. However, notwithstanding the above order the Bailiff of the executing Court took possession of the disputed shops on 14‑3‑1985 after breaking the locks. Noor Elahi (respondent No. 1 herein) feeling aggrieved by this action filed a suit under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act for restoration of the possession. He also submitted an application for interim injunction during the pendency of the suit. This application came up for hearing before the Civil Judge, Attock (respondent No. 2) on 7‑4‑1985, who, after hearing the parties, said:‑ "The perusal of copy, of warrant for possession shows that respondent (petitioner herein) got possession of the suit property on 14‑3‑1985 from the petitioner (respondent No. 1 herein) under an execution application on 12‑3‑1985. The petitioner (respondent No. 1) was allowed to remain in possession upto 31‑3‑1985 by the Supreme Court of Pakistan ..................... I am of the opinion that petitioner (respondent No. 1 herein) was dispossessed otherwise than in due course of law and legally he was entitled to remain in possession upto 31‑3‑1985. So prima facie petitioner (respondent No. 1 herein) has a strong case. Balance of convenience is also in his favour because there is order of Supreme Court in his favour hence application is accepted and respondent (petitioner herein) is directed to hand over the possession of the suit shops back to the petitioner (respondent No. l herein) accordingly." In his petition to this Court Sher Muhammad petitioner submits that the respondents have committed contempt of this Court by intentionally violating the order of this Court inasmuch as respondent No. 1 could keep the possession only until 31‑3‑1985 and the order to restore possession to him on 7‑4‑1985 is a violation of the said order. In his reply respondent No. 1 submits that he was dispossessed from the shops unlawfully on 14‑3‑1985 despite the stay order passed by this Court on 12‑3‑1985. Consequently, he filed a suit under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act for restoration of possession wherein nothing was suppressed from the Court that the petitioner, in fact, had committed contempt of Court by pursuing his execution application and getting respondent No. 1 dispossessed from the shops in question on 14‑3‑1985, despite the earlier order of this Court dated 12‑3‑1985 permitting him to retain possession upto 31‑3‑1985. Respondent No. 2 (Civil Judge, Attock) in his reply has submitted that he passed the order because of the reverence he has for this Court. The petitioner had violated the order of this Court dated 12‑3‑1985 and illegally caused dispossession of respondent No. 1; hence the latter had to be put back into possession. He, however, admits that he could not have passed the order which was passed by him on 7‑4‑1985 because the time allowed to respondent No. 1 to retain possession of the shops was only upto 31‑3‑1985, but he pleads that this mistake was committed bona fide and offered unqualified apology for his mistake. We observe that all the three parties disobeyed the order of this Court dated 12‑3‑1985; the petitioner in getting the respondent No. 1 dispossessed from the shops on 14‑3‑1985 in pursuance of his execution application despite having been restrained from doing so, upto 31‑3‑1985, the respondent No.1 for prosecuting his suit for regaining possession after 31‑3‑1985 and the civil Judge (respondent No. 2) in passing the order restoring the possession to respondent No. 1 after 31‑3‑1985 on 7‑4‑1985. This is, therefore, a unique case in which all the parties, namely, the party asking this Court to punish other parties as well as the said other parties all appear to have committed contempt of this Court by having violated the terms of the order of this Court dated 12‑3‑1985. But the conduct of the respondent No. 2 (Civil Judge, Attock) is most surprising. As a judicial officer he should have realised that he could not possibly pass any order to restore the possession of the shops to respondent No. 1 after 31‑3‑1985. No doubt, according to him, the said order was bona fidely passed but he was, constrained to admit before us that this was not legally possible and a serious mistake. However, he has tendered an unqualified apology and neither of the parties who appeared before him on 7‑4‑1985 in connection, with the application filed by respondent No. 1 for issuance of an interim injunction, seem to have drawn his attention to this aspect of the case. In all these circumstances this is not a fit case for taking action against the respondents for contempt. The notices issued to them are, accordingly, discharged. Notices discharged. M.B.A.