1991 PLP 2064 (MLD)

Date of hearing: 25th May, 1991. This petition under section 3 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976 arises out of the following facts: On 4-4-1981 Mr. Hamid Ali Khan respondent executed an agreement to sell a portion of House No.8 -- Friends Colony, Samanabad, Lahore in favour of Khalid Mumtaz petitioner. For some reasons its could not be acted upon which resulted in estrangement of relations between the parties and Mrs. Khalida Mumtaz wife of the petitioner got a case registered against Hamid Ali Khan respondent and others under sections 148, 307, 380, 457/149, P.P.C. which culminated in his conviction and he was sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. Challenging his conviction and sentence Hamid Ali Khan etc. filed an appeal in the High Court, while Mrs. Khalida Mumtaz filed a revision for the enhancement of the sentence. At the time of the final hearing of the above matters the parties arrived at a compromise and placed on record a writing Ex. CW-1/1. By virtue of this compromise the earlier agreement to sell dated 4-4-1981 was rectified by the parties and Hamid Ali Khan agreed to execute sale-deed in favour of Khalid Mumtaz on payment of the remaining sale price by him. They also undertook to withdraw cases pending against each other in different Courts. The revision petition for the enhancement of sentence was not pressed and was accordingly dismissed. The appeal of Hamid Ali Khan and others against their conviction was, however, accepted on merits and they were acquitted of the charges. In the contempt application Khalid Mumtaz petitioner alleged that though he had taken all the necessary steps for the performance of the agreement dated 23-4-1989, Hamid Ali Khan respondent defied the undertaking given by him to the Court and thereby committed contempt of this Court. Hamid Ali Khan respondent contested the application. He admitted the execution of agreement dated 23-4-1989 but stated that it was not an undertaking to the Court and as such did not amount to contempt of Court. He further maintained that no order in terms of Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. had been passed of which he could be said to have committed any violation. The facts regarding the execution of agreement dated 4-4-1981, conviction of Hamid Ali Khan and others on criminal charges and the compromise dated 23-4-1989 are not disputed between the parties. The document comprising the terms of compromise arrived at between the parties on 23-4-1989 is Ex. CW-1/1. Not only the agreement dated 4-4-1981 was rectified by the parties but the method of its performance was also settled by them. A perusal of the compromise Exh. CW-1/1 indicates that it pertains to the dispute of a civil nature. The parties were striving on certain rights and liabilities arising out of their mutual transactions. The law has not only laid down special provisions but also specific procedure for the enforcement of such a cause. , The agreement in question requires not only the determination of respective rights and obligations of the parties but also involves various legal issues such as limitation, valuation for stamp duty and court-fee; the executability or otherwise of the terms of agreement/settlement on legal or equitable premises etc. These and other allied issues can be decided only in civil proceedings by a competent Court after detailed enquiry. Even otherwise the settlement was neither a part of the proceedings of the criminal appeal nor was arrived at with the intervention of this Court. The fact that the acquittal of Hamid Ali Khan and others was based on merits is sufficient to show that the compromise was not in direct relation to the proceedings of criminal appeal pending before this Court. As such the document dated 23-4-1989, though made in Court, cannot be termed as an undertaking given to the Court. An undertaking the violation of which amounts to contempt of Court must constitute a promise to the Court. The statement of the law as to undertakings that appears in para. 51 of Halsbury's "Law of England" Vol. VII is, "the breach of an undertaking given to the Court by a person or corporation, pending proceedings, on the faith of which the Court sanctions a particular course of action or inaction, is misconduct amounting to contempt. In the present case the settlement docs not amount to a promise to the Court. The Court had not sanctioned a particular course of action or inaction, nor was any order passed under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. In the above circumstances no case of contempt of Court is made out. Consequently the petition moved by Khalid Mumtaz is dismissed and the notice issued to Hamid Ali Khan is discharged. A.A./K-345/L Petition dismissed.