1994 PLP 730 (MLD)

Muhammad Mansha etc. respondents moved an application (on civil side) against Ashiq Hussain and Muhammad Hussain petitioners for violation of a temporary injunction, under Order 39, Rule 2(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was disposed of by Mr. Karamat Ali Sheikh, Civil Judge Sheikhupura. He concluded that " The respondents committed the offence under Order 39, Rule 2 (3), C.P.C. They (the petitioners) are guilty of the offence under Order 39, Rule 2(3), C.P.C. Accordingly I sentence the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 Ashiq Hussain and Muhammad Hussain sons of Manzoor Hussain to undergo simple imprisonment for one month." The petitioners appealed and the learned Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura vide judgment; dated 4-7-1991 concluded that the sentencing of the petitioners to one month S.I. was beyond the scope of sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of Order 39, C.P.C. and it could not be sustained. However, he substituted the sentence by the order that the petitioners be detained in civil prison initially for one month extendable upto 6 months unless in the meantime the Court directs their release, of course, on their restoring to the respondents the possession of the disputed land.

2. The orders have been challenged in the present revision petition.

3. Preliminary objection has been raised that the order was passed by the learned Additional District Judge as such and so Crl. Revision under section 435/439, Cr.P.C. was not competent. On the other hand the learned counsel for the petitioners asserted that the learned Senior Civil Judge had treated the petitioners as accused and sentenced them to one month's S.I. and thus the matter originally was treated as a criminal one. The admitted position is that the application made to the Civil Judge by the respondents was for violation of an order and was under order 39, rule 2(3), C.P.C. so the conduct of the proceedings like a criminal matter by the learned Civil Judge was an incorrect approach. That seems to be the reason that the sentence of one month S.I. which was beyond the scope of Order 39, Rule 2(3), C.P.C. was set aside by the learned Additional District Judge. The matter was purely under the Code of Civil Procedure and so the objection is upheld that the criminal revision was not competent.

4. But the matter being a simple one and having been in the process of consideration for a long time, the criminal revision is converted to one as civil revision. Since the possession has already been delivered (in obedience to the Court's order) the main grievance of the respondents is over. The petitioners e have also undergone the agony of the proceedings which were conducted by the Civil Judge as if these were of criminal nature and then appeal to the learned Additional District Judge, no further useful purpose would be served to keep them in civil prison for one month or to extend the period of their detention. The matter is thus finally disposed of. H.B.T./A-279/1, Order accordingly,