1997 PLP 793 (MLD)

This writ petition is directed against the respondents on the ground that the petitioner was allegedly a tenant under respondent No.2 i.e. Evacuee Trust Property Board, Multan. One Master Aziz‑ur‑Rehman is also a tenant in the adjoining portion of the same unit separately. Respondent No. 1 i.e. Municipal Committee, Mian Chunnu claimed their leasing right in the unit occupied by Ghulam Rasul petitioner and as such, started threatening to get it vacated and a portion of it was allegedly demolished.

2. The petitioner challenged the claim of the Municipal Committee, Mian Chunnu in the Civil Suit No.149, dated 17‑4‑1996 titled Ghulam Rasul v. Master Aziz‑ur‑Rehman, etc. in which a prayer was made that the respondents be permanently restrained to dispossess the plaintiff/petitioner Ghulam Rasul. The suit was contested by the Municipal Committee, Mian Chunnu who were defendant No.3 in that suit. A statement was made on 26‑9‑1996 by the learned counsel for the aforesaid defendant/respondent that the plaintiff/petitioner shall not be ejected except in accordance with law. However, a right was reserved that legal action may be initiated. Thereafter, they instead of proceedings in accordance with law dismantled a portion of the property in question for which the petitioner moved an application for contempt of Court under Order 39, Rule 2(3) read with Order 21, Rule 32, C.P.C. That petition is yet sub judice and a notice has already been issued to the contemner including respondent No.2 i.e. Administrator, Municipal Committee, Mian Chunnu.

3. It is prayed in this petition that respondent No. l should be directed to proceed in accordance with law.

4. I have considered the foregoing submissions and have also gone through the record. Respondent No. l had already given an undertaking in a suit before the Civil Court that they shall proceed in accordance with law whereupon the suit was disposed of. However, they did not keep the words whereupon, an application for contempt was moved against them which is still sub judice. It is thus, obvious that the matter is sub judice and an effective and efficacious remedy is available in the proceedings which are now in progress against respondent No. l under the contempt law in the Court below. In such a situation, the writ petition will be premature because the matter has not yet been finally concluded. It is accordingly disposed of with the direction that the learned Civil Court where the petition for contempt is pending against the respondents shall proceed firmly in order to get the contempt against them effectively purged, if it is proved that the respondents/contemners have been guilty of violation of any order of that Court or acted extraneous to law after giving statement in the Court that they would take action only in accordance with law. Disposed of with the above observations. A.A./G‑24/L Order accordingly.