1984 PLP 26 (SCMR)
DOST MUHAMMAD and others — Petitioners Versus NAZAR HUSSIAN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1984 PLP 26 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Haleem, Actg. C.J, Shafiur Rahman and |
| Parties | DOST MUHAMMAD and others — Petitioners Versus NAZAR HUSSIAN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 26 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 26 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Haleem, Actg. C.J, Shafiur Rahman and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 26 (SCMR) (DOST MUHAMMAD and others — Petitioners Versus NAZAR HUSSIAN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hasan Ahmad Khan Kanwar, Auvocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salahud din, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 7th December, 1983.
- Hasan Ahmad Khan Kanwar, Auvocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salahud din, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 204(2)--Contempt of Court Act (LXIV of 1976), S.9--Contempt of Supreme Court--Controversy factual and relating to what happened on date when no order of Supreme Court was in field--No case for proceeding in Contempt of Supreme Court made out--Petition dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
Hasan Ahmad Khan Kanwar, Auvocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salahud din, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 7th December, 1983. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑ The defendant judgment‑debtors, by this application under Article 204(2) of the Constitution read with section 9 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1976 seek appropriate action against the plaintiff decree‑holders and two police officers. The plaintiffs suit for possession of 1,026 Kanals 4 Marlas land in village Shaman, Tehsil Mailsi, District Vehari, was decreed on 6‑3‑1978. The deposit was actually made on 22‑3‑1979 and the delay was condoned by the first appellate Court by order dated 30‑3‑1983. This order was challenged in this Court. On 10‑4‑1983 an interim order was passed staying the operation of the decree as well as the order of the High Court dated 30‑3‑1983. In its compliance, it is said that the executing Court directed the return of warrant of possession unexecuted. It was found that the warrant of possession was executed on 4‑4‑1983. The petitioner contents that the warrant was never properly executed, that petitioners continue to be in possession and enjoyment of the property and that the respondents are interfering in their possession in spite of an order of this Court. From the facts and dates given above it appears that the controversy is factual and relates to what happened on 4‑4‑1983 when no order of this Court was in the field. It was the executing Court) whose orders were then ii the field. Any controversy relating to it can be decided and has to be decided by the executing Court itself. No case for proceeding in contempt of this Court is made out. Hence this petition is dismissed. S.Q. Petition dismissed.