Contempt on stay | In the writ petition, the court upheld the lower courts' decision and dismissed the petition, as the stay order had expired and its violation was not proven.

Contempt on stay | In the writ petition, the court upheld the lower courts' decision and dismissed the petition, as the stay order had expired and its violation was not proven.

نچلی عدالتوں نے درخواست گزاروں کی توہین عدالت کی درخواست مسترد کر دی تھی۔ ٹرائل کورٹ نے قرار دیا تھا کہ حکم امتناع کی خلاف ورزی ثابت نہیں ہوئی کیونکہ عبوری حکم صرف جائیداد کی منتقلی سے متعلق تھا، اور مدعا علیہان نے کہا کہ انہوں نے صرف مرمت کا کام کیا ہے، نئی تعمیرات نہیں کیں۔ درخواست گزاروں نے اس کے خلاف کوئی ثبوت پیش نہیں کیا اور نہ ہی کوئی حلف نامہ داخل کیا۔ اپیل کورٹ نے بھی ٹرائل کورٹ کا فیصلہ برقرار رکھتے ہوئے درخواست مسترد کر دی تھی۔

اس کیس کی کہانی یہ ہے کہ آفتاب احمد خان اور دیگر نے دلاور خان اور دو دیگر افراد کے خلاف ایک مقدمہ دائر کیا، جس میں جائیداد کی ملکیت، میزان منافع کی وصولی، قبضے کی بحالی، اور مستقل حکم امتناع کا مطالبہ کیا گیا۔ عدالت نے عبوری حکم جاری کیا تھا جس کے تحت مدعا علیہان کو جائیداد کی فروخت یا منتقلی سے روکا گیا تھا۔ درخواست گزاروں نے الزام لگایا کہ مدعا علیہان نے اس حکم کی خلاف ورزی کرتے ہوئے غیر قانونی تعمیرات کیں، لیکن مدعا علیہان نے کہا کہ وہ صرف مرمت کر رہے تھے، تعمیر نہیں۔ چونکہ درخواست گزاروں نے اس کے خلاف کوئی ثبوت یا حلف نامہ جمع نہیں کروایا اور حکم امتناع کی مدت بھی ختم ہو چکی تھی، اس لیے عدالت نے درخواست گزاروں کا دعویٰ مسترد کر دیا۔

یہ مقدمہ آفتاب احمد خان اور ایک دوسرے بمقابلہ دلاور خان اور دو دیگر کے عنوان سے ہے، جو 9 دسمبر 2022 کو اسلام آباد ہائی کورٹ میں جسٹس سمن رفعت امتیاز کے سامنے سنا گیا۔

اہم قانونی نکات:

درخواست گزاروں نے ایک رٹ پٹیشن دائر کی تھی جس میں:

اعلامیہ (ڈیکلریشن)

میزان منافع (مِنز پرافٹ) کی وصولی

قبضہ

لازمی اور مستقل حکم امتناعی (انجکشن) شامل تھے۔

درخواست گزاروں نے الزام لگایا کہ عدالت کے جاری کردہ حکم امتناع (اسٹے آرڈر) کی خلاف ورزی کی گئی ہے، کیونکہ مدعا علیہان نے متنازعہ جائیداد پر غیر قانونی تعمیرات کیں۔

اہم قانونی نکات:

1. حکم امتناع کی تشریح: ٹرائل کورٹ نے یہ قرار دیا کہ عبوری حکم میں صرف مدعا علیہان کو جائیداد کی منتقلی سے روکا گیا تھا، نہ کہ مرمت کرنے سے۔

This case is titled Aftab Ahmed Khan and another v. Dilawar Khan and 2 others, decided on 9th December 2022, by Justice Saman Rafat Imtiaz in the Islamabad High Court.

Key Legal Issues:

The petitioners filed a writ petition in a case involving a suit for:

Declaration

Recovery of mesne profits

Possession

Mandatory and permanent injunction

They alleged that there was disobedience or breach of a stay order issued by the court, as the respondents had engaged in illegal construction on the disputed property.

Key Legal Points:

1. Interpretation of Stay Order: The trial court found that the stay order (ad-interim) only restrained the respondents from alienating the property, not from making repairs. The respondent's stance, stating that only repair work was done, remained unchallenged by the petitioners, as they did not submit a rejoinder or counter-affidavit.

2. Expiry of Stay Order: The court noted that the stay order dated 5th December 2019, which had been confirmed on 28th January 2021, had a validity of six months under Order XXXIX, Rule 2B, Civil Procedure Code (CPC). It expired on 27

2024 M L D 316

[Islamabad]

Before Saman Rafat Imtiaz, J

AFTAB AHMED KHAN and another---Petitioners

Versus

DILAWAR KHAN and 2 others---Respondents

W.P. No. 1498 of 2022, decided on 9th December, 2022.

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---

----O. XXXIX, Rr. 2B & 2(3)---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42, 8 & 54---Suit for declaration, recovery of mense profit, possession and mandatory and permanent injunction---Disobedience or breach of stay order, allegation of---Expiry of stay order---No contempt of Court---Application under O. XXXIX, R. 2(3), C.P.C. was dismissed by the Trial Court and appeal thereagainst was also dismissed---Validity---Trial Court had held in the impugned order that the term status quo had been interpreted by the ad-interim order itself by restraining the respondents from alienating the suit property---No allegation of alienation had been made by the petitioners---Even otherwise, as far as the allegation of illegal construction was concerned, it might be seen that the respondent No.1 took a specific stance vide his reply sworn on oath that only repair work was carried out and no construction had been made on the suit property which stance remained un-rebutted by the petitioners as no affidavit-in-rejoinder was filed by them---In such circumstances the petitioners had remained unable to establish that any disobedience or breach of the stay order had been committed---Allegedly, there was no stay order in the field at the time of the alleged contempt as the order dated 28.01.2021, whereby the ad-interim order dated 05.12.2019 had been confirmed, had a validity period of six months pursuant to O. XXXIX, R. 2B, C.P.C. which therefore expired on 27.07.2021---Ad-interim order dated 05.12.2019 was confirmed on 28.01.2021 and as such was valid only till 27.07.2021---Petitioners had not brought on record nor alleged that any extension was passed by the Trial Court in the absence of which the temporary injunction ceased to have effect on expiry of six months---In view of the foregoing reasons there was no injunctive order in the field at the time of the alleged contempt---For all the foregoing reasons neither the injunctive order was in existence at the time of the alleged contempt of Court nor had the alleged violation been proved---Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed accordingly.

       Syed Muhammad Shah Jehan Shah and 22 others v. Fazal-ur-Rehman and 45 others 1996 CLC 1572; Raja Talat Mahmood v. Ismat Ehtishamul Haq 1999 SCMR 2215; Gul Haider v. Dr. Muhammad Asad Zia 2003 YLR 913; XEN PESCO (WAPDA) Mansehra through Chairman, PESCO and 4 others v. Gas Masters CNG Filling Station, Mansehra through Khalid Latif and others PLD 2005 Pesh. 132; Muhammad Zahid Naseem Adil v. Muhammad Shafi and 5 others 2007 YLR 2190; District Collector, Bannu and 4 others v. Muhammad Subhan and 3 others 2008 CLC 1568; Dr. Taj Malook v. Malik Niaz Khan and another 2009 CLC 377; Muhammad Safdar and another v. Muhammad Naseer Haider and others PLD 2019 Lah. 295; Sahib Zada Din Muhammad v. Muhammad Zaman and others 2021 CLC 1560 and Messrs Pfizer Pakistan Limited and 2 others v. Pharma Plus International through Managing Partner 2022 CLC 1298 rel.

       Ahmed Shahzad Awan for Petitioners.

       Shahryar Nawaz Khan for Respondents.

 

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.