2006 PLP 2758 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD KHALID ALVI, J.

Brief facts of the case are that in a suit filed by the respondent against petitioners Nos.3 and 5 status quo order_ was confirmed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 28-4-1999. On 15-8-2000, respondent filed an application under, Order XXXIX, Rule 2(3), read with section 151, C.P.C. seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the present petitioners. Vide order dated 2-9-2000; the learned trial Court deleted the names of petitioners Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 6 from the array of respondent in the said contempt petition on the ground that they being not party to the original suit cannot be proceeded under Order XXXIX, rule 2(3), C.P.C. This order was sought to be reviewed by the respondent through an application which was dismissed vide order dated 11-10-2004. This order was further assailed by the respondent through a revision petition which was allowed vide order dated 28-2-2005. The petitioner challenged this order through a review before the same Court which also stands dismissed vide order dated 5-5-2005. These last two orders are being assailed through the instant constitutional petition.

2. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the petitioners has not challenged the order dated 5-5-2005 on the ground that review was not competent. However, has seriously assailed the order dated 28-2-2005.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to 1999 MLD 297 has argued that petitioners Nos.1, 2, 4 and 6 being not a party to the suit in which the status quo order dated 28-4-1999 was confirmed and further that the order was not addressed to them no action under Order XXXIX, Rule 2(3) could be initiated against them.

4. In response to the arguments of the petitioner it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent with reference to 1993 CLC 489 and PLD 1967 Dacca 67 that in sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 of Order XXXIX read with section 94 of the C.P.C. the word used with reference to disobedience of the order of Court is 'person' and not 'party' therefore, any person whether party to suit or not violates an order of the Court can be proceeded against under Order XXXIX, Rule 2(3), C.P.C.

5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.

6. The legislature in its wisdom has used the word 'person' and not 'party' in section 94, C.P.C. and Order XXXIX, Rule 2(3), C.P.C. in order to bring all those to justice who violates the order of a Court whether they are party or not, however, the person brought to Court to face such allegation can validly take a defence of ignorance of existence of such an order of the Court. However, if it is proved on record that he had the knowledge of the order of the Court, then of course, he can be proceeded and taken to task. Respectfully following the Full Bench judgment of the High Court, I have no option but to dismiss this petition. Order accordingly. H.B.T./M-400/L Petition dismissed.