Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 361 of 1981, decided on 14th April, 1981.

(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 16‑3‑1981 in W. P. 11197/1980).

Contempt of Court Act (LX of 1976)‑

---S. 3‑Contempt of Court‑Order of status quo passed and allegedly violated by opposite‑party in interfering with possession of petitioners Cross criminal cases registered at police station with regard to occurrence subject‑matter of contempt petition‑Subject‑matter of both proceedings being identical, parallel inquiry notwithstanding order to be passed being materially different‑Held, not called for Other proceedings going on between parties affording better oppor tunities for determination of question of facts of possession, trespass and damage, proceedings in contempt declined in circumstances.

Ali Ahmad Awan, Advocate Supreme Court with M. A. Qureshi for Respondent No. 7.

Date of hearing : 14th April, 1981.

.‑The petitioners have filed an application for taking proceedings under section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act ,against the five respondents.

2. The petitioners claiming to be in occupation of State land had challenged their threatened ejectment from the same by a constitutional petition. The petition was dismissed for non‑prosecution on 2 ‑2‑1981 and the application for its restoration also failed on 16‑3‑1981. The petitioners then filed a civil petition seeking leave to appeal against the refusal to restore their constitutional petition. On 21‑3‑1981 an order of status quo was passed on their application. It is said that the status quo so ordered was violated by the opposite‑party on 30‑3‑1981 when interference with the possession of the petitioners took place.

3. We find from the document filed that cross criminal cases have been registered at police station Toba Tek Singh with regard to the occurrence which has been made the subject‑matter of the contempt petition. As the subject‑matter of both the proceedings would be identical though the order to be passed ultimately will be materially different a ‑parallel inquiry is not called for. We consider that there being other proceedings going on which afford better opportunities for determination of question of facts of possession, trespass and damage, physical and personal and of property, we decline to proceed in contempt. The petition is dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.