2012 PLP 969 (SCMR)
MAQBOOL AHMAD and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2012 PLP 969 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Mian Shakirullah Jan and Anwar Zaheer Jamali, JJ |
| Parties | MAQBOOL AHMAD and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Supreme Court Rules, 1980 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP 969 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Supreme Court Rules, 1980 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2012 PLP 969 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Mian Shakirullah Jan and Anwar Zaheer Jamali, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP 969 (SCMR) (MAQBOOL AHMAD and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Saeed-ur-Rehman Farrukh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Kh. Saeed-uz-Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(For initiation of Contempt Proceedings for violation of order of this Court dated 4-5-2000).
O. XXVII
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 204
Allegation against accused (respondents) was that they violated an interim order of the Supreme Court, to the effect that possession of complainants (petitioners) over disputed land was not to be disturbed, and that proceedings before the Revenue Officer were not stayed
Contention of the complainants was that interim order had been deliberately violated by the accused persons, as a result whereof mutations had been changed and complainants had been dispossessed from the disputed land
Appeals filed by complainants in the matter had been dismissed by the Supreme Court, and allegation of violation of the said interim order, prima-facie, did not have much substance, as the proceedings before the Revenue Court were not stayed during the pendency of the appeals
No fruitful purpose would have been served if contempt proceedings were initiated at the present stage after a lapse of more than a decade
Question of violation of court order, was one, which was strictly between the court and the alleged violator of such order
Complainants could pursue their remedy before the proper forum, in case they suffered some damages due to any wrongful act of the alleged accused persons
Petition was dismissed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, J.
The instant petition under Order XXVII of the Supreme Court Rules 1980 read with Article 204 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 has been moved by two petitioners Maqbool Ahmad and Manzoor Ahmad with reference to their grievance regarding the violation of an interim order dated 4-5-2000 passed in C.P.L.A. No.912-L of 2000 (Civil Appeal No.2103 of 2000), which reads as follows:-- "
2. Subject to the petitioners furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector concerned for and in relation to the entitlement of Mst. Lal Sain as one of the widows of deceased propositus Rehmat Ali, the possession of the petitioners over the land in dispute shall not be disturbed. The proceedings before the "Revenue Officer concerned" are not stayed. It has been made clear that the security to be furnished as above, within a month from today i.e. by 3-6-2000, shall be available to the successful party in terms of the remand order by the High Court in Writ Petition No.1521 of 1983, which will in its own turn, be subject to the result of the main Petition/C.P. No.912-L of 2000."
2. The assertion of the petitioners is that such interim order has been deliberately violated by the respondents Nos.1 to 14, as a result whereof mutations have been changed and they have been dispossessed from the land under litigation.
3. Today, by a separate judgment, for the detailed reasons recorded therein, we have dismissed both the appeals filed by the present petitioners being devoid of merits. In so far as the alleged violation of the interim order dated 4-5-2000 is concerned, prima facie, we do not find much substance in these allegations levelled in the petition, as the proceedings before the Revenue Court concerned were not stayed during the pendency of the two appeals.
4. In our opinion in the changed circumstances, no fruitful purpose will be served if such proceedings are initiated at this belated stage after lapse of more than a decade. Moreso, when the question of violation of Court order, as alleged; is one, which is strictly between the Court and the alleged violator of such order. However, in case due to any wrongful act of respondents Nos.1 to 14 petitioners have suffered some damages, they can pursue their remedy in this regard before the proper forum, but strictly in accordance with law.
5. With the above observations, Criminal Original Petition No.76 of 2010 is also dismissed. M.W.A./M-25/SC Petition dismissed.