P L D 1960 (W (PLP)

The contempt proceedings are taken against a person only if he or she is guilty of commission of an act which tends to bring the administration of justice into scorn or which tends to interfere with the due course of justice. If a person to whom a commission is issued expresses his or her inability to execute the commission for one reason or other but has no intention to bring the administration of justice into scorn, or to interfere with the due course of justice, then he or she cannot be held to be guilty of committing the contempt of Court. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

O. XXVI, r. 15 Fixation of Commission's fee‑Court to take into account status and position of person. When fixing the fees‑the Court should, take into account the status and position of the person to whom the commission is proposed to be issued. If the Court offers a ridiculous amount then it cannot blame the person if he or she refuses to execute the commission. Ghias Muhammad for Petitioner. In the suit (Syed Nasir Shah v. Syed Murtaza Shah) pending in the Court of Ch. Abdur Rahman Bhatti, Civil Judge, Lahore, a commission was issued to Miss R. S. Qari, an Advocate of this Court, to record the statement of Mst. Razia Begum, a defendant in that case. The fee fixed for the execution of this commission was Rs.

20. Miss Qari represented to the Court that as she was a senior Advocate of this Court, therefore, it was not possible for her to execute the commission on the payment of Rs. 20 but she would do so willingly if the fee was enhanced to Rs.

50. The learned trial Court has taken exception to this representation of Miss Qari and has issued notice to her to show cause why should she be not prosecuted for contempt of Court. Miss Qari has come up to this Court for setting aside the above order. The learned Civil Judge from whom the report was sent for has distinctly stated that he does not intend to take any further action in the matter. In fact the only action which he could take was either to report the case to this Court or to draw up a complaint and send the case to criminal Court for proper trial. Since he does not wish to take any further action in the matter, it may not be necessary to pursue the matter any further. But I am constrained to shake a note of warning to the learned Judge and remark that he has taken a very childish and unwarranted view of the whole matter. The contempt proceedings are taken against a person only if he or she is guilty of commission of an act which tends to bring the administration of justice into scorn or which tends to interfere with the due course of justice. If a person to whom a commission is issued expresses his or he inability to execute the commission for one reason or other but has no intention to bring the administration of justice into scorn, or to interfere with the due course of justice, then he or she cannot be held to be guilty of committing the contempt of Court. In the instant case, Miss Qari did not intend to scorn the Court nor did she intend to interfere with the administration of justice. She just could not execute the commission on the amount offered to her for the job. When fixing the fees the Court should take into account the status and position of the person to whom the commission is proposed to be issued. If the Court offers a B ridiculous amount then it cannot blame the person if he or she refuses to execute the commission. Keeping in view the position of Miss Qari, the fee offered to her was certainly very low. So if she refused to accept the offer, because it cannot be more than an offer, then she did not commit any offence. I consequently consider that the notice which the Civil Judge issued to Miss Qari was most ill‑advised and is hereby cancelled. Order accordingly. K.M.A. Petition allowed.