2020 PLP 1413 (YLR)
FIDA HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus SANA ULLAH ABBASI and 7 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2020 PLP 1413 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court |
| Bench Members | Ali Baig, J |
| Parties | FIDA HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus SANA ULLAH ABBASI and 7 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2020 PLP 1413 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2020 PLP 1413 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court bench comprising: Ali Baig, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2020 PLP 1413 (YLR) (FIDA HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus SANA ULLAH ABBASI and 7 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sharief Ahmed and Waqas Ahmed for Petitioners.
- Additional Advocate General and Dy. A.G. (Civil) assisted by Abdullah, D.S.P. (Legal) for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
O.XXXIX, R.2(3)--Interim injunction--Violation
Scope
Petitioner alleged that the respondents by demolishing the steel gate installed by petitioner violated the order of court whereby petitioner was allowed to complete the construction of boundary wall on the disputed land
Court had not specifically restrained the respondents from interfering in the suit land
Contempt petition was dismissed.
O.XXXIX, R.2(3)--Interim injunction--Violation
Scope
Person who disobeys the injunction can be proceeded against for contempt of court and action can also be taken against him under O. XXXIX, R. 2(3), C.P.C.
Injunction becomes operative the moment it is served upon respondent and he is made aware of the order.
Judgment & Decree
ALI BAIG, J.
This petition under Article 92 of Gilgit-Baltistan Order, 2018 and Order XXXIX, Rule 2(3), C.P.C. for initiation of contempt proceedings has been filed against the respondents by the present petitioner calming that present respondents/ contemnors have violated the orders of this court dated 06-10-2017, and Hon'ble Supreme Appellate Court dated 29.11.2018.
2. The present respondents/the alleged contemnors contested the aforesaid petition by filing their parawise comments in this court wherein they have repudiated the averments/contents of contempt petition.
3. Today this petition was fixed for arguments on the maintainability of petition, and accordingly arguments heard and record also perused.
4. From perusal of contents of the instant petition it reveals that the petitioner has alleged that the respondents/ contemnors have demolished the steel gate installed/erected by the petitioner in the boundary wall of the land situated near Police Training School Sakwar Gilgit.
5. I have also gone through the judgment/order of this court dated 16.10.2017, whereby the petitioner was allowed to complete the construction of boundary wall of the disputed land on his own risk and cost and in case the fate of suit land is decided in favour of the answering respondents, he shall not claim any compensation of boundary wall constructed by him and the above said judgment of this court was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit-Baltistan and the Hon'ble Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit-Baltistan has maintained the aforesaid judgment of this court vide order dated 29-11-2018, thus prima facie the respondents have not violated any order of this court as well as order of the Hon'ble Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit-Baltistan dated 29-11-18. Moreover, this court has not specifically restrained the present respondents from interfering in the suit land vide the aforesaid judgment nor any injunctive/ restraining order was passed/issued by this court against the respondents, then how the respondents have violated the order of this court.
6. It may be observed that a person who disobeys the injunction can be proceeded against him for contempt and action can also be taken against him under Order XXXIX, Rule 2(3), C.P.C. An order of injunction becomes operative, the moment it is served upon a respondent and he is made aware of the order. It is duty of the petitioner to prove from the record that any order of court was served upon the respondents. In the present case the petitioner has also failed to prove this fact, therefore question for violation of any order of this court by the respondents does not arise.
7. In view of what has been discussed, I am of the firmed/considered view that this petition is not maintainable and is herby dismissed. File. SA/114/GB Petition dismissed.