Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 134‑D of 1969, decided on 15th June 1970.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of East Pakistan, Dacca, dated the 25th November 1969, in Civil Rule No. 1326 (s.m.) of 1969).
Art. 123‑Contempt of superior Courts‑High Court itself satisfied that no case of its contempt made out‑Interference of Supreme Court‑Not called for.
Art. 123‑Contempt of Court‑Person accused of having disobeyed orders of Court and having thus committed contempt of Court not impleaded as party in application for contempt‑Such person not impleaded as party even in petition for special leave to appeal‑Such fact alone, held, sufficient for rejection of contempt application by High Court.
Nizamuddin Haider, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. S. Hoda, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 15th June 1970.
The petitioner brought Title Suit No. 4 of 1966 in the Second Court of Subordinate Judge, Barisal against the Province of East Pakistan, represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Bakerganj, for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from making any settlement of the suit land to any body else. The petitioner prayed for an ad interim injunction, but the prayer was rejected both by the trial Court and the appellate Court. The petitioner then moved a revisional application in the High Court of East Pakistan and succeeded in obtaining an ad interim injunction. It was alleged that Mr. K. M. A. Rab, the then Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Bakerganj approved settlement of the suit land in spite of the ad interim injunction. Accordingly, the petitioner made an application in the High Court for taking action for contempt of Court. The learned Judges of a Division Bench of the High Court rejected the application on the ground that no case for contempt was made out. The present petition is directed against the decision of the High Court.
It appears from the order of High Court that the learned Judges having gone through the application for contempt were satisfied that no case for contempt was made out. When the High Court itself found that it was not in contempt the interference of this Court is not called for. It was stated in the petition that Mr. K. M. A. Rab, the then Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), approved settlement of the suit land in spite of the ad interim injunction, but he was not made a party in the application for contempt filed in the High Court. Mr. Rab is not also a party in the petition for special leave. This fact alone was sufficient for the rejection of the contempt application by the High Court.
The petition is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer