1976 PLP 354 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, C. J.‑Alongwith Writ Petition No. 287‑R of 1965, tiled by Muhammad Munshi, appellant, in the High Court at Lahore, he moved an application under Order XXXIX, rules I and 2, C. P. C. suppor ted by an affidavit athrming that he was in possession of the land in dispute as an allottee but the respondents, therein, were threating to evict him by force. A prayer was accordingly made for issuing an injunction to the respondents restraining them from interfering with his possession. The application came up before a Division Bench of the High Court on 19‑3‑1:'05 whereupon the following order was passed on the application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2 :‑ "The possession of the petitioner is not to be disturbed subject to their furnishing security for mesne profits to the satisfaction of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner of the area concerned. In case the result of the writ petition is adverse to them, the security to be furnished within fifteen days." Later on it transpired that Muhammad Munshi had never been in possession of the land and the averments made by him in the affidavit, on the basis of which the above order was passed, were: to his knowledge and belief, false. A notice was, thereupon, issued to him as to why he should not be punished for contempt of Court. The appellant, in reply re‑affirmed that he was in possession of the land on the date on which he had filed the writ petition alongwith the application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C. P. C. and maintained that he was sub sequent evicted by the respondents by use of force. In support of the reply, he filed copies of Khasm Girdawari of the land for 1964‑65 and a copy of an entry in the Daily Diary dated 11th June, 1964. of the village Patwari to the effect that possession of the land was given to the appellant in execution of a warrant issued by the Revenue Court. The entry in the Daily Diary was proved to be false as will be seen presently. The Khasra Girdawaris, on the other hand, belied the appellant's assertion that he was in possession of the land at the relevant date. The appellant was accordingly, convicted by a learned Single Judge for Contempt of Court and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month against which he preferred the present appeal, as of right, under Article 58 (1) of the 1962 Constitution. In support of the appeal, we have heard Mr. Qadir Bakhsh and examined the record which has left us in no doubt that the appellant, though an allottee of the land, had never been inducted Into possession. The respon dents, in the writ petition, were in earlier possession of the land and had all along contested the order of allotment in favour of the appellant. The inference drawn by the High Court was supported by the extracts from Khasra Girdawaris filed by the appellant in the High Court and the statement made by his Special Attorney Nazir Ahmad in the four suits filed b m in a Revenue Court for ejectment of the respondents in the writ petition on the averment that they had failed to pay Batai to the appellant. In each one. of the suits Nazir Ahmad made a categorical statement on oath that Muhammad Munshi, though an allottee, had never been in possession of the land. These statements gave lie to the entry in the Daily Diary of the Patwari that possession of the land was given to the appellant through his special attorney Nazir Ahmad. The inference that the appellant had never been in possession was further strengthened by the fact that instead of complaining to the High Court that the respondent at in the writ petition had, in breach of the order dated 19-3‑1965 forcibly evicted the appellant, he chose to file regular suits against the respondents for ejectment. In the state of evidence re‑capitulated above, we find ourselves it agreement with the learned Judge in the High Court that the appellant hat filed a false affidavit in support of the application under Order XXXIX, rule I and 2, C. P. C. and thereby committed contempt of Court. No exception can, in the circumstances, be taken to the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant under Article 123 of they 1962 Constitution but as the appellant was allowed bail as far back as 12‑8‑1971, it appears too late to send hint back to prison in 1976. Accordingly in lieu of imprisonment we sentence him to pity a fine of Rs. 1000 for committing contempt of the High Court to default he will undergo the term of one months imprisonment imposed on him by the High Court. Three months time is allowed to pay the fine. Order accordingly.