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.
Criminal Original No.1‑R in Civil Appeal No.121 of 1983, decided on 8th January, 1984.
‑‑‑Art. 204(2)‑‑Contempt of Court Act (LXIV of 1976), S.9‑‑Contempt of Supreme Court‑‑Controversy factual and relating to what happened on date when no order of Supreme Court was in field‑‑No case for proceeding in Contempt of Supreme Court made out‑‑Petition dismissed.
Hasan Ahmad Khan Kanwar, Auvocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salahud din, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 7th December, 1983.
The defendant judgment‑debtors, by this application under Article 204(2) of the Constitution read with section 9 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1976 seek appropriate action against the plaintiff decree‑holders and two police officers.
The plaintiffs suit for possession of 1,026 Kanals 4 Marlas land in village Shaman, Tehsil Mailsi, District Vehari, was decreed on 6‑3‑1978. The deposit was actually made on 22‑3‑1979 and the delay was condoned by the first appellate Court by order dated 30‑3‑1983. This order was challenged in this Court. On 10‑4‑1983 an interim order was passed staying the operation of the decree as well as the order of the High Court dated 30‑3‑1983. In its compliance, it is said that the executing Court directed the return of warrant of possession unexecuted. It was found that the warrant of possession was executed on 4‑4‑1983.
The petitioner contents that the warrant was never properly executed, that petitioners continue to be in possession and enjoyment of the property and that the respondents are interfering in their possession in spite of an order of this Court.
From the facts and dates given above it appears that the controversy is factual and relates to what happened on 4‑4‑1983 when no order of this Court was in the field. It was the executing Court) whose orders were then ii the field. Any controversy relating to it can be decided and has to be decided by the executing Court itself. No case for proceeding in contempt of this Court is made out. Hence this petition is dismissed.
S.Q. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer