2006 PLP 2577 (YLR)

This appeal under section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Ordinance, 2004 seeks to challenge an order of the learned Judge in Chamber of this Court recorded on 31-5-2006 in Criminal Original No.1-B of 2006 in C.O.S. No.66 of 2000 re: Crystal Chemicals Ltd. v. Zahid Waheed Khan etc.

2. The, operative part of the order contained in last two paras.Nos.31 and 32 reads as under: "Para-31 "In view of the fact that the respondents are responsible and A senior functionaries of the Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan, this Court for the present would abstain from adopting compulsive and coercive measures for the enforcement of its orders expecting the respondents to diligently comply with order dated 28-10-2005 and the directions hereinabove issued. However, in case of non-compliance by IDBP and the respondents, the Court shall consider undertaking proceedings against them in the A modes set out in the case of "Bakhtawar and others v. Amin and others 1980 SCMR

89. Para-32, The present Cr

1. Org. along with all the other pending .applications shall be fixed for further consideration on 19-6-2006.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent on the ratio settled in re: M.H. Khondkar and another v. The State and another 1971 SCMR 743 and re: West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority through its Chairman v. Chairman, National Industrial Relations Commission PLD 1979 SC 912, contends and we will agree that an appeal under the provisions of section 19 of the, said Ordinance is competent before a Division Bench of this Court only against "an order" passed by a Single Judge of this Court. By way of the impugned order the operative part whereof has been reproduced above the Honourable Judge did not convict the alleged contemnors. The Criminal Original as well as other pending applications was fixed for further B consideration for 19-6-2006. We are informed that no proceedings on that day could be held on account of absence of the learned Judge. The contention put forward at the bar for the appellant that "practically" the Honourable Judge has accepted the application and therefore, this appeal is competent cannot be granted. A hope or expectation on the part of the Judge that the alleged contemnors would comply with the earlier direction made by him cannot be said to have matured into an "order" of sentence or conviction. The word "an order" used in section 19(1) of the said Ordinance cannot be interpreted in any other manner except the one in which it was seen and looked at by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cases relied upon at the bar for the respondent. In the aforesaid judgments the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan pointed out the legal peculiarity of the contempt proceedings. The first being an exception to the rule that a person cannot be a Judge of his cause and therefore, there was no legal bar for issuance of notice to a contemnor by the concerned Judge himself and secondly, that contempt being a matter between the Court and the contemnor a Judge could not be forced either to convict or not to convict a contemnor. It is only an order of the conviction and not an order refusing to interfere or convict an alleged contemnor which is appeal able. In the case in hand at the end of the day the learned Judge even c after finding the contemnor to have disobeyed the orders and direction earlier made by him on 28-10-2005 still may not like to convict the alleged contemnor/ present appellant.

6. The appellant, therefore, will have to wait till the final disposal of the pending Criminal Original. Of course in case it results into a sentence or conviction he can approach a Division Bench of this Court while no right of appeal will be available to any of the parties in case the learned Judge refuses to interfere.

7. Dismissed in limine. S.A.K./Z-30/L Appeal dismissed.