2022 PLP 973 (MLD)
MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED through Manager — Petitioner Versus Mst. NUSRAT JAMEELA and 4 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2022 PLP 973 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore (Multan Bench) |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED through Manager — Petitioner Versus Mst. NUSRAT JAMEELA and 4 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Contempt of Court Ordinance (IV of 2003) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2022 PLP 973 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Contempt of Court Ordinance (IV of 2003) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2022 PLP 973 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore (Multan Bench) bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2022 PLP 973 (MLD) (MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED through Manager — Petitioner Versus Mst. NUSRAT JAMEELA and 4 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Khurram Hashmi for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Suleman Bhatti and Iftikhar Majid for Respondents Nos.1 to 3.
- Muhammad Javaid Iqbal Adum for Respondent No.4.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.2(a), 3 & 5
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.38 & O.XXI
Contempt proceedings, validity of
Scope
Petitioner impugned order of Trial Court whereby upon application of plaintiff / decree-holder for initiation of contempt proceedings against petitioner, the petitioner was directed to comply with decree of Trial Court
Tool of contempt could not be used as substitute for execution and implementation of judgment and decree of Trial Court and impugned order was therefore not sustainable
Impugned order was set aside
Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
ANWAAR HUSSAIN, J.
Through the present constitutional petition, the petitioner bank has challenged the order dated 30.11.2020 passed by learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Multan on application for contempt of Court filed by respondents Nos.1 to 3 wherein the petitioner bank has been directed to comply with the judgment dated 16.07.2019 and handover the valuables contained in the locker which was jointly owned by Qazi Javaid Iqbal and his wife Nargis Chaudhry to respondents Nos.1 to 4 and revision petition filed by the Bath has been dismissed vide judgment dated 24.03.2021 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Multan.
2. It is the case of respondents Nos.1 to 4 that the deceased Nargis Chaudhry was issueless and they are her real sisters and hence, in furtherance of decree dated 16.07.2019, petitioner bath was obligated to handover the valuables contained in the locker maintained with bank by deceased Nargis Chaudhry and her husband.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned courts below have erred in passing an order in contempt petition directing the Bank to execute the decree and judgment passed by learned Civil Judge, hence, has deviated from the settled principles of law that such an order cannot be passed in contempt proceedings and in this manner the court has assumed role of executing court. Moreover, it has been submitted that since locker was jointly owned by late Nargis Chaudhry (sister of respondents Nos.1 to 4) as well as her deceased husband, namely, Qazi Javaid Iqbal and the declaration regarding successors-in-interest of said Qazi Javaid Iqbal has not been obtained, therefore, the bank is obligated to wait till clarity in this regard is on record in order to save the interest of the legal heirs of said Qazi Javaid Iqbal.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. When confronted as to how tool of contempt can be used as a substitute for execution and implementation of the judgment and decree of the trial court in view of law laid down in reported judgment dated 04.11.2020 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Crl.M.A.62-P/2018 in Cr1.O.P.82/2010 and Crl.O.P.55/2018 in Cr1.O.P.82/2010 in C.P.103-P/2010, tilted Saeeda Sultan v. Liaqat Ali Orakzai and others PLD 2021 SC 671, learned counsel for the respondents frankly conceded that such order is not sustainable and has no objection if the impugned order as well as judgment are set aside, however, they reserve the right to approach the learned executing court for implementation of the judgment and decree dated 16.07.2019.
6. In this view of the matter, the instant constitutional petition is allowed, in the above terms and impugned order and the judgment passed by the learned courts below are set aside. Respondents may avail their remedies in accordance with law. No order as to cost. KMZ/M-203/L Petition allowed.