1991 PLP 1321 (SCMR)
PROVINCE OF N.-W.F.P. and another — Petitioners Versus ABDUR RAHMAN, FOREST CONTRACTOR (since dead)
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1321 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Kadir Shaikh and Ghulam Mujaddid JJ |
| Parties | PROVINCE OF N.-W.F.P. and another — Petitioners Versus ABDUR RAHMAN, FOREST CONTRACTOR (since dead) |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1321 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1321 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Kadir Shaikh and Ghulam Mujaddid JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1321 (SCMR) (PROVINCE OF N.-W.F.P. and another — Petitioners Versus ABDUR RAHMAN, FOREST CONTRACTOR (since dead)). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian M. Ajmal, Additional Advocate-General, N.-W.F.P. and Nur Ahmad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Syed Najmul Hassan Kazmi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 5th July, 1989.
- Mian M. Ajmal, Additional Advocate‑General, N.‑W.F.P. and Nur Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Syed Najmul Hassan Kazmi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Learned Additional Advocate‑General appearing in support of the petition submits that since the decree was sought to be executed through contempt proceedings within the jurisdiction of the High Court, it was competent for the High Court to examine the legality of the impugned notice. Learned Additional Advocate‑General further urged that action in contempt cannot be taken for the enforcement of a decree against a judgment‑debtor and in this behalf relied on certain reported cases.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment/order of Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, dated 9th April, 1989 in Writ Petition No.425 of 1984).
Arts. 185(3) & 199--Constitutional petition filed by petitioners before Peshawar High Court challenging contempt notice issued to them by Civil Court at Lahore in execution proceedings of a compromise decree passed against petitioners, was dismissed on ground of want of territorial jurisdiction-- Petitioners contended that since decree was sought to be executed through contempt proceedings within jurisdiction of Peshawar High Court, it was competent to examine legality of notice and that action in contempt could not be taken for enforcement of decree against a judgment-debtor
Contentions were repelled holding that since it was open to petitioners to raise any plea in defence to notice before Court issuing the same for action in contempt against petitioners, matter would have to be referred by issuing Court to High Court where petitioners would again be entitled to raise all pleas that may be available to them on facts or in law
Stage, held, was too premature, for High Court to interfere in its Constitutional jurisdiction.
Judgment & Decree
Mian M. Ajmal, Additional Advocate‑General, N.‑W.F.P. and Nur Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Syed Najmul Hassan Kazmi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 5th July, 1989. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of Peshawar High Court dated 9‑4‑1989 dismissing a Constitution Petition filed by the petitioners whereby they sought to challenge notice dated 18‑10‑1984 issued by the Civil Judge, First Class, Lahore to show cause why action in contempt should not be taken against them. The impugned notice was issued in execution proceedings of a compromise decree passed against petitioners in a suit riled by respondents 1 to
3. The High Court dismissed the Constitution Petition on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction in these words:‑‑ "The writ petition in hand has been filed to challenge a notice which has been issued by Civil Judge 1st Class, Lahore. However under Article 199 of the Constitution this Court cannot exercise any jurisdiction in respect of the notice issued by respondent No.4 for the reason that he is not performing functions within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. In this connection the provisions of sub‑clause (a) of clause (1) of Article 199 are very clear. This Court is not competent to entertain and adjudicate upon this writ petition on account of the bar of territorial jurisdiction. The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs." Learned Additional Advocate‑General appearing in support of the petition submits that since the decree was sought to be executed through contempt proceedings within the jurisdiction of the High Court, it was competent for the High Court to examine the legality of the impugned notice. Learned Additional Advocate‑General further urged that action in contempt cannot be taken for the enforcement of a decree against a judgment‑debtor and in this behalf relied on certain reported cases. We are however clearly of the view that since it is open to the petitioner to raise any pleas in defence to the show‑cause notice before the learned Civil Judge who has issued the impugned notice, and in any case for the action in contempt against the petitioners the matter will have to be referred by the learned Civil Judge to the High Court where the petitioners would again be entitled to raise all the pleas that may be available to them on facts or in law, it was too premature a stage for the High Court to interfere in its Constitutional jurisdiction. For these reasons there is no merit in this petition and it is dismissed. H.B.T./P‑118/S Petition dismissed.