1985 PLP 1989 (CLC)

The plaintiffs have filed C.M.A. No.1379/84 for taking action under sections 2 & 3 of the Contempt of Court Act against the defendants and the Director Land. and Estate of K.M.C., Karachi, for having violated order of the Court dated 27-7-1983. The application has been resisted on behalf of the defendants and the Director, Land and Estate, K.M.C., Karachi. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration that the defendants namely Director Taxes, K.M.C., Karachi, and the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation are not entitled to levy land rent fee as per resolution No.1060 dated 30-5-1983 on the plaintiffs' installation and electric polls and that the said resolution is of no legal effect; and perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and or their officers, agents and servants from levying/assessing/recovering any amount whatsoever from the plaintiffs as per resolution No.1060 of the counsel of the defendant corporation. Simultaneously an application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. (2312/83) was filed for suspending/ operation/implementation of the impugned resolution No.1060 dated 30-5-1983. The application came up for hearing on 27-7-1983, when it was disposed of by the following order: "Both the counsel state that a committee has been constituted to settle differences between the parties. Mr. S.Muslim Naqvi Advocate states that the defendants would not raise demand against the plaintiff in pursuance of the impugned resolution till the decision by the committee. In view of this statement, Mr.S.M. Noorul Hassan does not press the injunction application without prejudice to making a fresh application if need be. The injunction application stands disposed of accordingly." The present application under section 2 and 3 of the Contempt of Court Act has been filed on the basis of a letter dated 24-3-1984 addressed to the Secretary of the plaintiffs by the Director Land & State, which reads as under: 'SUBJECT : Payment of rent for utilization of K.M.C. Land by Karachi electric supply corporation. Karachi Metropolitan Corportion has decided to charge rent for utilization of K.M.C., land by K E S C from 1st July 1983 at Rs.1 per pole per month and Rs.1 per meter per month as per following particulars. (1) 3700 meters at??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Rs.3,33,000,000 ????? Re.1 meter per month (rent from ????? Ist July 1983 to March 1984).??????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Rs.13,500,000 (2) 1,50,0000 poles at Re.1 per pole per month ????? (rent from Ist July 1983 to March 1984. ???????????????????????????? Rs.3,46,50,000 Your are therefore requested to pay Rs.3,46,50,000 (Rupees three crore forty six lets and fifty thousand) to K.M.C., immediately. It has been contended on behalf of the plaintiffs that the aforesaid letter dated 24.-3-1984 is violation of the statement made by the learned counsel for the defendants as incorporated in the order dated 27-7-1983 reproduced above. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has urged that the letter raising the demand was issued by Mr.Inayatullah, the Director Land, K.M.C., as confirmed by him in his counter-affidavit and he is liable to be punished for contempt of Court. He concedes that no action is called for against the defendant, themselves. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendants and the Director Land, K.M.C., has contended that the order of the Court dated 27-7-1983 did not give any directions to the defendants that they should not take any action for raising demand. According to him, the application was disposed of on the basis of statement made by both the counsel that the matter was referred to a committee and that way was left open for the plaintiffs for making fresh application if need be. It appears from the order that the interim injunction application was disposed of on the basis of statement made by the counsel for the parties that a committee had been constituted to settle differences bet?ween the parties and the learned counsel for the defendants made further statement that the defendants would not raise demand against the plaintiffs in pursuance of the impugned resolution till the decision by the committee. It is further mentioned in the order that the injunction application was not pressed by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs in view of the aforesaid statement and right of the plaintiffs was reserved for making fresh application if need be. It follows that no specific directions were issued to the defendants that no action should be taken in pursuance of the resolution made in the plaint, although the statement made by the counsel was expected to have been adhered to. Accordingly, the issuance of the letter dated 24-3-1984 does not strictly amount to the violation of .the order and the plaintiffs have the option of making fresh application for temporary injunction. In the circumstances, the application is dismissed with no order as to costs. M.Y.H.??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Application dismissed.