1983 PLP 1639 (CLC)

The present application has been made by the plaintiff Adam seeking punishment of seven contemners an the ground, that they have disobeyed at disregarded the order of this Court The brief facts are that the plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of his wages in the Admiralty Jurisdiction of this Court. An application was made under rule 731 of the Sind Chief Court Rules seeking an order for arrest of the defendant vessel. which admittedly was berthed at out ancho rage of Karachi Port Trust. In the later part of the opening paragraph of the application an order was sought that the vessel should not be released till such time that the defendant or any person on behalf of the defendant vessel satisfies the claim or furnishes security. This application had accompanied the plaint and my learned brother Saeeduz Zaman, J. on 24th August, 1980 passed an older in the following terms :‑ "Let notice of application under rule 731 of Sind Chief Court Rules (O. S.) may be issued for 3rd May, 1980 meanwhile interim order for arrest of ship m. v. Kaptain Mitsos which is said to be anchored with in the jurisdiction of this Court may be issued," On 3rd May, 1980 my learned brother confirmed the earlier order. The allegations in the present application are that on or about 15th May, 1980 the plaintiff came to know that the defendant vessel has escaped from the custody and left the Port of Karachi, defying the order of arrest, passed by this Court. It has further been averred that the vessel could not have escaped without the help or connivance of the Port Trust Autho rities, the Customs Officers and the Agents. On such premises action for ‑ punishment of the seven alleged contemners/respondents is sought. In order to punish a person, foe breach of an injunction, it is to b affirmatively shown that there was an effective order or direction by Court to a person asking him specifically to do a particular act or to refrain from doing a particular act. Thereafter it is to be clearly estab lished that the person to whom such an order was directed has acted contrary to the directions in so far as the same affirmatively asked him to do a particular thing or refrain from doing some particular act. Applying the test to the facts in the instant case, it is clear that in the application made by the plaintiff under rule 731 of the Sind Chief Court Rules, no directions or order of restraint was asked by the plaintiff against any one of the seven contemners. The order of arrest was asked only in respect of the vessel in rem and therefore, the learned Single Judge, had also ordered for the arrest of the vessel, without any order against the alleged contemners in the present application. Even the formal orders issued by this Court were directed to the Nazir of this Court, to authorise and to require him to arrest the said vessel. Such order was complied with. No orders have been issued against the contemners, and therefore, they were not bound to take any action. Mr. Akram Zubairi has, however, submitted that copy of this order has been forwarded to the Controller of Customs and Dock Master of K. P. T. From the counter‑affidavits, that have been filed by the alleged, contemners, it appears that copies were probably forwarded to them, or at least to some of them. The contemnors state that earlier to their obtaining" such copies the vessel had sailed away. Be that as it may, the mere forwarding of a copy of order to the Customs Authorities or the K. P. T. Authorities, without directing or requiring them to do a particular act, or to refrain from doing some act cannot saddle them with any power or responsibility in respect of the vessel. Possibly the alleged con temnors might have been guilty of an excess of their powers if they had done anything to allow the vessel to sail in spite of specific directions. On the other hand, all that is alleged in the application, made by the plaintiff is a surmise that the defendant vessel could not have escaped without the help or connivance of the Port Authorities, Customs Autho rities or Agents. The applicant does not at all state under what circum stances and at what point of time the vessel has sailed away. Besides the alleged contemners also averred that the vessel in question, as is admit ted even by the plaintiff was at outer anchorage, at which place the Customs Authorities, or the Port Authorities have no jurisdiction. I see no substance in this application, which I dismiss. M. A. K. Application dismissed.