Violation of stay order The Islamabad High Court held that the stay order had expired on 27.07.2021, after which there was no effective order. The petitioners have not proved that the respondents have violated the order in any manner, and also that the respondent had only carried out repair work, to which no effective response came from the petitioners. Therefore, the court concluded that there was no contempt of court and dismissed the petition. 2024 M L D 316

Violation of stay order
The Islamabad High Court held that the stay order had expired on 27.07.2021, after which there was no effective order. The petitioners have not proved that the respondents have violated the order in any manner, and also that the respondent had only carried out repair work, to which no effective response came from the petitioners. Therefore, the court concluded that there was no contempt of court and dismissed the petition.

2024 M L D 316

کیس کا خلاصہ: 2024 M L D 316

فریقین:

درخواست گزار: آفتاب احمد خان اور ایک اور

جواب دہندگان: دلاور خان اور دیگر

درخواست نمبر: 1498/2022

فیصلے کی تاریخ: 9 دسمبر 2022

کیس کی تفصیل:

یہ کیس ایک رہنمائی حکم کی خلاف ورزی کے دعوے پر مشتمل ہے، جس میں درخواست گزاروں نے جواب دہندگان پر الزام لگایا کہ انہوں نے عدالت کے حکم کی نافرمانی کی ہے۔

اہم نکات:

1. اسٹیٹس کو کی وضاحت: ٹرائل کورٹ نے پہلے ہی واضح کیا تھا کہ جواب دہندگان کو جائیداد کی منتقلی سے روکا گیا تھا، لیکن درخواست گزاروں نے اس کی خلاف ورزی کا کوئی ثبوت فراہم نہیں کیا۔

2. تعمیر کا معاملہ: جواب دہندہ نے کہا کہ صرف مرمت کا کام کیا گیا، جس کا کوئی مؤثر جواب درخواست گزاروں کی طرف سے نہیں آیا۔

3. رہنمائی حکم کی میعاد: عدالت نے بتایا کہ رہنمائی حکم کی مدت ختم ہو چکی تھی۔ یہ حکم 28.01.2021 کو منظور ہوا تھا اور 27.07.2021 کو ختم ہوگیا۔ درخواست گزاروں نے اس کی توسیع کا کوئی ثبوت پیش نہیں کیا۔

4. توجہ کی عدم موجودگی: چونکہ اس وقت کوئی موثر رہنمائی حکم نہیں تھا، عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ کوئی توہین نہیں ہوئی۔

نتیجہ:

اسلام آباد ہائی کورٹ نے درخواست مسترد کر دی، کیونکہ درخواست گزاروں نے نہ تو کوئی خلاف ورزی ثابت کی اور نہ ہی موثر حکم کی موجودگی دکھائی۔ یہ کیس توہین کے دعووں میں قانونی طریقہ کار کی اہمیت کو واضح کرتا ہے۔

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.