2006 P Cr (PLP)
FAKIR ALI BUX — Appellant Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH through Home Department, Karachi and 4 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | FAKIR ALI BUX — Appellant Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH through Home Department, Karachi and 4 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Contempt of Court Act (LXIV of 1976) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Contempt of Court Act (LXIV of 1976) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 P Cr (PLP) (FAKIR ALI BUX — Appellant Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH through Home Department, Karachi and 4 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Gianchand Keswani for Petitioner.
- Siddiqui, Mukhtiarkar for Respondent No.2.
- 2. In response to the notice issued by this Court the S.H.O. concerned appeared and filed statement that he neither has nor will cause any harassment to the petitioner in respect of the disputed land. The learned A.A.-G. also submitted that respondent No.2 Mukhtiarkar will not take any action against the petitioner contrary to law and if any action is taken that would be strictly in accordance with law, in the result of those statements the petition was disposed of as not pressed. Afterwards the petitioner filed present application under Article 204 of the Constitution of Pakistan read with sections 3 and 4 of the Contempt of Courts Act alleging therein that Mukhtiarkar had committed contempt of Court by resorting to harass the petitioner by effecting mutation in the record of rights in respect of land in the suit pending between the parties specially 1st Class Suit No.94 of 2001. While arguing the application, the learned Advocate representing the petitioner stated that despite statement given by the S.H.O. and learned A.A.-G. Mukhtiarkar effected the mutation in respondent of Survey No.408(1.00 acres). He referred to Annexure "A" to the application. He also contended that this was done despite the application by the petitioner that no such mutation should be effected.
- 3. The learned A.A.-G. and the learned Advocate representing Mukhtiarkar respondent No.2 have stated that the mutation was effected on the basis of registered sale-deed which the Mukhtiarkar was required B to do under the law and as such it was not the violation of the statement that he would not do any act in contravention of law.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 3 & 4
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.204 & 199
Constitutional petition
Petitioner in his earlier constitutional petition had contended that in respect of dispute regarding land, civil litigation was going on between him and one of the respondents
Petitioner had alleged that Mukhtiarkar and S.H.O. concerned were harassing and threatening him of changing Khata of said land and that S.H.O. had threatened him of initiating proceedings against him under 5.107, Cr.P.C.
S.H .0., in response to notice issued by High Court, appeared and stated that he' neither had nor would cause harassment to petitioner
State Counsel also submitted that Mukhtiarkar would not take any action against petitioner contrary to law and if any action was taken, that would be strictly in accordance with law
Application by petitioner was disposed of in the light of said statements
Subsequently petitioner filed application under Art.204 of the Constitution and under Ss.3 & 4 of Contempt of Court Act, 1976 alleging therein that Mukhtiarkar had committed contempt of court by resorting to harass petitioner by effecting mutation in the record of rights in respect of suit-land
Mutation in question was effected on the basis of registered sale-deed which Mukhtiarkar was required to do under law and it was not violation of statement made earlier by Mukhtiarkar in the Court that he would not do any act in contravention of law
Nowhere it was alleged that any restriction was imposed by the Court against such mutation
In absence of such restriction, act performed by Mukhtiarkar was not in violation of statement given by the State Counsel before the Court
Application of petitioner was dismissed being misconceived.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD SADIQ LEGHARI, J.
On 28-4-2001 Fakir Ali Bux filed Constitution Petition No. S-432 of 2001 stating therein substantially that in respect of dispute in respect of land civil litigation is going on between him and respondent No.4 Choudhary Ghulam Rasool. Further that the Mukhtiarkar Rohri and S.H.O. Salehpat were harassing and threatening him of changing Khata. He also alleged that S.H.O. Police Station Salehpat has threatened him of initiating the proceedings under section 107, Cr.P.C.
2. In response to the notice issued by this Court the S.H.O. concerned appeared and filed statement that he neither has nor will cause any harassment to the petitioner in respect of the disputed land. The learned A.A.-G. also submitted that respondent No.2 Mukhtiarkar will not take any action against the petitioner contrary to law and if any action is taken that would be strictly in accordance with law, in the result of those statements the petition was disposed of as not pressed. Afterwards the petitioner filed present application under Article 204 of the Constitution of Pakistan read with sections 3 and 4 of the Contempt of Courts Act alleging therein that Mukhtiarkar had committed contempt of Court by resorting to harass the petitioner by effecting mutation in the record of rights in respect of land in the suit pending between the parties specially 1st Class Suit No.94 of 2001. While arguing the application, the learned Advocate representing the petitioner stated that despite statement given by the S.H.O. and learned A.A.-G. Mukhtiarkar effected the mutation in respondent of Survey No.408(1.00 acres). He referred to Annexure "A" to the application. He also contended that this was done despite the application by the petitioner that no such mutation should be effected.
3. The learned A.A.-G. and the learned Advocate representing Mukhtiarkar respondent No.2 have stated that the mutation was effected on the basis of registered sale-deed which the Mukhtiarkar was required B to do under the law and as such it was not the violation of the statement that he would not do any act in contravention of law.
4. I have perused the true copy of the entry which indicates that mutation was effected on the basis of registered sale-deed. Nowhere it is alleged that there was any restriction from the Court operating against such mutation. In absence of such restriction the act performed by the Mukhtiarkar was not in violation of the statement given by the learned A.A.-G. before the Court. The application is misconceived and is dismissed along with listed applications. H.B.T./F-12/K???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Application dismissed.