2010 PLP 793 (YLR)

SAIF-UR-REHMAN, J.

Through this I.C.A. the appellant has impugned the order dated 6-6-2005 passed by the learned Single Bench, whereby application for contempt of Court moved under Article 204 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan and Contempt of Court Ordinance, 1998 against the respondent was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent filed Writ Petition No.9565 of 1998 challenging his liability to pay arrears to the appellant, wherein, on his own undertaking, he was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.1,49,650 (Rupees one lac forty nine thousand six hundred and fifty) within 10 days of the order which was passed on 3-6-1999. The respondent did not pay this amount, hence, the said application for contempt of Court was moved which was dismissed vide order assailed through this appeal. That the respondent had clearly violated the order passed by the learned Single Bench, hence, was liable to be proceeded under the law. He could not be exonerated from payment of the arrears, hence, the amount due from the respondent may be got recovered from him and direction to this effect be passed.

3. It shall be appropriate to reproduce the operative part of the impugned order which reads as under:-- "I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record available on the file. Vide order dated 3-6-1999 passed in C.M. No.1300 of 1999 in Writ Petition No.9565 of 1998 this Court observed that according to the averment in ground (E) of the writ petition an amount of Rs.1,49,650 was outstanding against the petitioner/respondent contemnor in this petition for which he offered to pay the said amount till 31-5-1999 and accord ingly the petitioner/respondent was directed to deposit the said amount on or before 10-6-1999. He was further directed to deposit the balance amount if any within the next ten days. Now, the respondent Hafiz Muhammad Sadiq has filed suit for rendition of account against the Nazim Tehsil Council; Sahiwal which is pending adjudication before the Court of original jurisdiction. This being a matter between the contemnor and Court and when the suit on the subject-matter is pending adjudication before the Court of competent jurisdiction Criminal Original does not lie. For what has been discussed above the instant Criminal Original stands dismissed being without any substance."

4. As is evident from the above order since the matter of contempt was between the Court and the contemnor, therefore, the learned Single Bench did not feel necessary to proceed against the contemnor. No illegality could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant in use of this discretion in favour of the respondent by the Court. When confronted with this proposition, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it was for the Court to ensure the recovery of the said amount as well from the respondent.

5. We do not agree with the learned counsel for the appellant because as referred in the impugned order this matter was sub judice before Court of original jurisdiction.

6. In view of the above facts this appeal is held to be without any force, hence, is dismissed. H.B.T./M-840/L Appeal dismissed.