2003 PLP 1589 (CLC)

Through this single order, we propose to dispose of I.C.A. No.203 of 2002 and I.C.A. No.208 of 2002, as commod questions of law and facts are involved in both the appeals.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants earlier filed Writ Petitions Nos.295 of 1999 and 296/of 1999, claiming themselves to be in possession of some land owned by the Town Committee, Abdul Hakeem, declared as Kachi Abadi. It was further claimed that their petition for grant of propriety rights is not being disposed of by the competent Authority. These writ petitions were disposed of by this Court vide order dated 13-1-1999, with a direction to dispose of the applications of the appellant within two weeks. The appellant moved applications before the Chairman, Town Committee on 26-1-1999. These applications were dismissed vide order dated 10-2-1999. This order was assailed by the appellants through civil suits, the same were contested alongwith a stay application, which was ultimately dismissed vide order dated 29-3-2000. During the pendency of the civil suits, the appellants filed Writ Petitions Nos.4297 of 2000 and 4298 of 2000, in this Court without disclosing the pendency of the civil suits. On 23-5-2000, one Abdul Hayee Khan, Chief Officer of the Town Committee appeared and made a concessional statement in favour of the appellants in the following terms:-- "The respondent No.2, present in person states that petitioner has paid the entire dues and possession is also with him and there is no legal bar for registration of sale-deed in favour of the petitioner. Further seeks fortnight's time to get the crown sale deed registered in favour of the, petitioner. Petitioner has also deposited the expenses for registration of sale-deed, and needful shall be done within fortnight." In view of the above statement, the appellants withdrew, their writ petitions. During the pendency of said writ petitions, they also withdrew their civil suits on 15-5-2000.

3. Since, a registered sale-deed was not executed and registered in favour of the appellants, they filed Criminal Original No.20/W of 2001 in Writ Petition No.4297 of 2000 and Criminal Original No.21/W o 2001 in Writ Petition No.4298 of 2D

00. Both these applications stand dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 8-5-2001. The same is being impugned through these two separate I.C.As.

4. Before going into the merits of `the case, learned counsel for the appellant was confronted with the law declared by the Honourable Supreme Court reported as PLD 1979 SC

912. According to this annunciation of the Honourable Supreme Court, an order, whereby the Court declines to interfere in the matter, an appeal under section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976 is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that he has filed the instant appeal under section 21 of Contempt of Court Ordinance (X of 1998) and its section 23 has repealed Contempt of Court Act, 1976, therefore, the instant appeals arc maintainable. In the alternative, it is further argued that the instant appeals are also maintainable under section 3 of the, Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972.

5. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant.

6. The Contempt of Court Ordinance, 1998 became effective from 27-10-1998. It lived its life of 4 months and could not become an Act of the Parliament, therefore, by virtue of Article 89 of the Constitution ceased, to exist. So far as, section 23 of this Ordinance, whereby, Contempt of Court Act, 1976 was repealed, also embraced its natural death with the expiry of Ordinance. The effect of this repeal of a permanent legislation by means of a temporary legislation also ceased to exist. As a result thereof, the permanent legislation i.e. Contempt or Court Act, 1976 automatically revived after the period of 4 month's life of the Ordinance. Reference can be made to PLD 1995 SC 66, PLD 2000 SC 26 and 2003 SLC

430. The nutshell of the above discussion is that this appeal under Contempt of Court Ordinance, 1998 is nor maintainable, as the said law has ceased to exist.

7. The Honourable Supreme Court in case reported as PLD 1979 SC 912 has observed as follows:-- "For the present, we are concerned merely with a case of a type where the High Court has not felt inclined to move further in the matter, it has neither issued any notice, nor any rule nisi, and nor framed' a charge. In this context; therefore, when the High Court has not felt it necessary to proceed any further it is not an order of the kind contemplated for appeal under section 10." In the instant case, the learned Single Judge did not feel inclined to move any further in the matter, nor any charge was framed. Therefore, the instant case squarely fell within the parameters of the above-referred D judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court. Therefore, no appeal under section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act, .1976 is maintainable.

8. The argument of the learned counsel that this appeal is maintainable under section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, is also without any substance. Under this provision of law, an appeal is maintainable in two eventualities; firstly, if a decree or final order is passed by the Single Judge of this Court in exercise of its original civil jurisdiction and secondly, an order passed by a Single Judge under clause (1) of Article 199 of the Constitution. The instant case does not fall m either of the above-referred two categories, therefore, under, this provision of law as well, the instant appeals are not maintainable.

9. For what has been stated above, these appeals are not, maintainable and are accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./L.37/L