Property seal on violation of stay order





2024 C L C 1720

[Islamabad]

Before Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, J

SURIYA ALTAF and another----Petitioners

Versus

MUHAMMAD WAZIR----Respondent

Civil Revision No.148 of 2024, decided on 7th May, 2024.

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---

----O. XXXIX, R. 2(3) & S. 151---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.42, 12 & 54---Suit for declaration, possession and permanent injunction---Injunction order, violation of---Sealing order passed on report of bailiff---Proceedings in application under O. XXXIX, R.2(3), C.P.C.---Powers of the Court---Scope---Plaintiff, while claiming to be the owner of suit-property pursuant to sale deed/mutation, alleged that the defendants had dispossessed him from the suit-property---Trial Court granted ad-interim injunction directing the defendants to maintain status quo; which injunctive order was later confirmed---Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application under O.XXXIX, R. 2(3), C.P.C., alleging that in violation of the injunctive order, the defendants were raising construction over the suit -property; the Trial Court, in view of spot inspection report by Court's bailiff, while allowing the said application, directed for the suit property to be sealed ('the sealing order')---Defendants filed revision petition as their assailing the said sealing order but to no avail---Question was whether the Civil Court, while deciding the application under O.XXXIX, R.2(3), C.P.C., was competent to have passed the order for sealing the suit property---Contention of the petitioners / defendants was that sealing of the suit property was without jurisdiction as while deciding the application under O. XXXIX, R. 2(3), C.P.C., the Trial Court had to either punish the alleged contemnors or acquit them---Validity---Petitioners / defendants had not denied that the ad-interim injunctive order was in the favour of respondent / plaintiff---Admittedly, the said injunctive relief was confirmed after an inter-partes hearing---Vide the said injunction, the petitioners / defendants were directed to maintain status quo with regard to the suit property---In his application under O.XXXIX, R. 2(3), C.P.C., the respondent / plaintiff had alleged that despite the temporary injunction in the field, the petitioners / defendants, in violation of the said injunction, were raising construction over the suit property---Vide the sealing order, the Civil Court directed the bailiff to visit the spot, enforce the injunctive order with the assistance of the local police and submit a report regarding the suit property---Sealing order passed by the Civil Court referred to the report of the bailiff and observed the same to be affirmative with respect to construction on the suit property---It was in said backdrop that vide sealing order the Civil Court directed for the suit property to be sealed in view of S.151, C.P.C.---Record revealed that after the confirmation of the injunctive order , the contempt petition was filed by the respondent/plaintiff alleging violation of the injunctive order at the hands of the petitioners / defendants by raising construction despite knowledge of the injunctive order---As it was confirmed by the bailiff in his report that the construction was raised on the suit property, the Civil Court did not commit any illegality by sealing the suit property---Indisputably, the act of blatant disregard of an injunctive order was akin to over-reaching the process of law and it was the duty of the Civil Court to protect the rights of the parties as they existed on the date of the filing of the suit and the grant of an injunction---Hence, the impugned orders declining to recall the sealing order passed by the Civil Court did not call for interference---Revision petition filed by the defendants, being merit-less, was dismissed in limine.

       Bakhtawar v. Amin 1980 SCMR 89; Hazara (Hill Tract) Improvement Trust v. Qaisera Ellahi 2005 SCMR 678; Saleem-ud-Din v. Municipal Committee 2000 SCMR 460; Mayo Khan v. Bashir Ahmad 2007 MLD 588; Hameeda Akhtar v. Nazir Muhammad 1995 CLC 2020 and Akbar Ali v. Muhammad Sabir 1989 MLD 92 ref.

(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---

----S. 151 & O. XXXIX, R.2(3)---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.42, 12 & 54---Suit for declaration, possession and permanent injunction---Inherit powers of the Court---Injunction order, violation of---Scope and effect---Plaintiff, while claiming to be the owner of suit-property pursuant to sale deed/mutation, alleged that the defendants had dispossessed him from the suit-property ---Trial Court granted ad-interim injunction order directing the defendants to maintain status quo; which injunctive order was later confirmed---Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application under O.XXXIX, R.2(3), C.P.C., alleging that in violation of the injunctive order, the defendants were raising construction over the suit-property ; the Trial Court, in view of spot inspection report by Court's bailiff, while allowing the said application, directed for the suit property to be sealed ('the sealing order')---Defendants filed revision petition assailing the said sealing order but to no avail---Validity---Section 151, C.P.C., should be invoked to give effect to an order validly passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction---When unlawful measures are adopted by a party, it is the responsibility of the Court to invoke S.151, C.P.C., to secure the ends of justice, or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court---That is what, in the present case, the Civil Court did by passing the sealing order and that is what the Court was required to do---Hence, the impugned orders declining to recall the sealing order passed by the Civil Court did not call for interference---Revision petition filed by the defendants, being merit-less, was dismissed in limine.

            Ch. Abdul Rehman Hur Bajwa for Petitioners.

 





یہ مقدمہ "سریا الطاف اور ایک دیگر بمقابلہ محمد وزیر" سول ریویژن نمبر 148 آف 2024 سے متعلق ہے، جو 7 مئی 2024 کو اسلام آباد ہائی کورٹ کے جج میانگل حسن اورنگزیب کے سامنے طے پایا۔ اس مقدمے میں درج ذیل نکات سامنے آئے:

1. معاملے کا پس منظر:

مدعی نے دعویٰ کیا کہ وہ متنازعہ جائیداد کے مالک ہیں اور اس کے متعلق بیع نامہ یا انتقال کی بنیاد پر قبضہ رکھتے ہیں۔

مدعی کا الزام تھا کہ مدعا علیہان نے انہیں جائیداد سے بے دخل کر دیا۔

ٹرائل کورٹ نے عارضی حکم امتناع جاری کیا، جس میں مدعا علیہان کو صورتحال برقرار رکھنے (status quo) کی ہدایت دی گئی۔


2. حکم امتناع کی خلاف ورزی اور عدالت کی کارروائی:

مدعی نے الزام لگایا کہ مدعا علیہان حکم امتناع کے باوجود جائیداد پر تعمیرات کر رہے ہیں۔

عدالت نے موقع کا معائنہ کروایا، جس میں عدالت کے بیلف نے تعمیرات کی تصدیق کی۔

عدالت نے جائیداد کو سیل کرنے کا حکم دیا اور پولیس کی مدد سے حکم امتناع پر عمل درآمد کروایا۔


3. مدعا علیہان کی نظرثانی درخواست:

مدعا علیہان نے عدالت کے سیلنگ آرڈر کو چیلنج کیا اور موقف اپنایا کہ سیلنگ کا حکم دینا عدالت کے دائرہ اختیار سے باہر ہے۔

ان کا کہنا تھا کہ O. XXXIX, R. 2(3), C.P.C. کے تحت عدالت یا تو توہین عدالت کے مرتکب افراد کو سزا دے سکتی ہے یا انہیں بری کر سکتی ہے۔


4. عدالت کا فیصلہ:

عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ حکم امتناع کی خلاف ورزی کے باعث جائیداد کو سیل کرنا سیکشن 151، سی پی سی کے تحت عدالت کے اختیارات میں شامل ہے۔

یہ بھی کہا گیا کہ جب عدالت کا کوئی جائز حکم نظرانداز کیا جائے، تو عدالت کا فرض ہے کہ وہ متاثرہ فریق کے حقوق کا تحفظ کرے اور انصاف کے تقاضے پورے کرے۔

عدالت نے نظرثانی درخواست کو بے بنیاد قرار دیتے ہوئے مسترد کر دیا۔


5. قانونی نکات:

سیکشن 151، سی پی سی: عدالت کے موروثی اختیارات کو نافذ کرنے کے لیے استعمال کیا جا سکتا ہے تاکہ انصاف کے تقاضے پورے کیے جا سکیں اور عدالتی عمل کا ناجائز استعمال روکا جا سکے۔

عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ ٹرائل کورٹ کا سیلنگ آرڈر انصاف کے تقاضوں کو پورا کرنے کے لیے ضروری تھا۔


6. حوالہ جات:

مختلف عدالتی نظائر، جن میں بختاور بمقابلہ امین (1980 SCMR 89)، ہزارہ ہل ٹریکٹ امپروومنٹ ٹرسٹ بمقابلہ قیصرہ الہیٰ (2005 SCMR 678) وغیرہ شامل ہیں، اس فیصلے کے حق میں پیش کیے گئے۔


خلاصہ:

یہ فیصلہ اس بات پر زور دیتا ہے کہ عدالت حکم امتناع کی خلاف ورزی کی صورت میں سخت اقدامات اٹھانے کی مجاز ہے تاکہ متاثرہ فریق کے حقوق کا تحفظ یقینی بنایا جا سکے اور انصاف کے تقاضے پورے ہوں۔





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.






  













 



 







































 





































and

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Property ki taqseem ,Warasat main warson ka hisa

Punishment for violation of section 144 crpc | dafa 144 in Pakistan means,kia hai , khalaf warzi per kitni punishment hu gi،kab or kese lagai ja ja sakti hai.

Bachon ki custody of minors after divorce or separation