Temporary injunction, Disobedience

Citation Name : 2018 CLC 615 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Side Appellant : KHALID KHAN
Side Opponent : FAZAL RIAZ
O. XXXIX, R.2(3) & O.XLIII, Rr.1(r) & 3---Temporary injunction, Disobedience of---Attachment of
property---Revision---Maintainability---Conversion of revision into appeal---Requirements---
Defendants inspite of temporary injunction raised construction on the suit land---Plaintiff filed
application under O.xxxix , R.2(3), C.P.C. and Trial Court attached the disputed property but
Revisional Court set aside the said order of attachment of property---Validity---Court while granting
an injunction might order the property of a person guilty of such Disobedience or breach to be
attached and might order such person to be detained in the prison for a term not exceeding six
months---Temporary injunction was granted in favour of plaintiff but defendants continued their
construction---Order passed while entertaining an application under O.xxxix , R.2(3), C.P.C. was an
appealable order---Defendants filed revision petition against the order passed by the Trial Court
which was not competent---No revision would lie where an appeal lay---Revision could only be
converted into appeal when there was a specific application moved for the purpose---No such
application was moved by the defendants in the present case---Revisional Court could not convert
said revision into appeal as no notice under O.xxxix , R.3, C.P.C. was given by the defendants which
was a mandatory requirement---Revisional Court had wrongly entertained the revision in
circumstances---Demarcation through local commission was yet to be finalized and report was to be
considered by the Trial Court---Trial Court was perfect court to pass an appropriate order after
examining the local commission report and of any objections if so filed by the parties---Impugned
order passed by the Revisional Court was declared as illegal, without jurisdiction and premature
which was set aside---Order passed by the Trial Court was restored---Constitutional petition was
allowed in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2015 PCrLJ 938 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
Side Appellant : ARSHAD KHAN
Side Opponent : JEHANZEB
& 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.561-A & 195---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908),
O. XXXIX, R. 2(3)---Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant---Common
intention---Quashing of FIR---Injunction, implementation of---Powers of civil court---Civil court had
adequate powers to enforce and ensure the implementation of its order/injunction by taking recourse
to the provisions of O.xxxix , R.2(3), C.P.C.---Neither a complaint under S.195, Cr.P.C. was filed by
the Civil Judge nor an application in that behalf was made before the civil court by the respondent---
Dispute, being of civil nature, FIR could not be lodged---Impugned FIR, registered under S.188/34,
P.P.C., was ordered to be quashed, in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2011 MLD 1449 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD ASLAM
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD NAZEER
O.xxxix , Rr.1, 2(3) & O.XLII, R.1(2)---Disobedience of order for temporary injunction---
Application filed by the plaintiff for grant of temporary injunction was granted---Defendant in
violation of said injunction order sold the shop in dispute---On filing application by the plaintiff
against the defendant for Disobedience of injunction order, court below convicted the defendant to
suffer four months simple imprisonment for committing wilful violation of order of Court below---
Validity---In view of provisions of R.2(3) of O.xxxix , C.P.C., court was not competent to convict the
defendant in Disobedience or breach of injunction; at the most, the court could attach the property of
the person guilty of Disobedience or detain him in prison as a preventive measure---Even for
awarding the penalty of attachment of the property and the detention in civil prison, a show-cause
notice upon the person guilty of Disobedience was necessary---Impugned order of the conviction of
the defendant, was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Appellate court for further
proceedings with the matter, in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2009 PLD 380 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : Syed NAGHMAN HAIDER ZAIDI
Side Opponent : ZAHID MEHMOOD
Art. 204---Contempt of Court Act (LXIV of 1976), Ss.3/4---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908),
O.xxxix of R.2(3)---Contempt of Court---High Court had issued contempt notices to the accused vide
impugned order---Sale-deed was executed in favour of respondents on a date when no stay order was
in the field---Accused being not a party in the transaction, contempt petition could not have been
filed against them and High Court had erred in issuing notices to them and the lawyers who remained
associated with the transaction of sale---Respondent who had no order in his favour had no locus
standi to file the contempt petition---Under sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 of O. XXXIX, C.P.L. no one could
be held guilty of the Disobedience of an order, except the person to whom the order was directed and
the Court had no jurisdiction to initiate contempt of Court proceedings against whom no order was
made---Contempt petition against accused, therefore, was not maintainable and the impugned order
was set aside---Appeal was allowed accordingly.
Citation Name : 2009 YLR 780 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : Ch. MAHMOOD UL HASSAN
Side Opponent : DISTRICT JUDGE, CHAKWAL
O. XXXIX, R. 2(3)(4)-Interim injunction, violation of---Contempt proceedings---Principle---
Ordinarily if temporary injunction issued by court is violated, action as contemplated in O.xxxix ,
R.2(3)(4) C.P.C. can be resorted to---Before punishing a person for Disobedience of temporary
injunction or breach of any term thereof, the court has to find that in fact such Disobedience or
breach has taken place and for that purpose inquiry is needed.
Citation Name : 2008 CLC 280 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD SHARIF
Side Opponent : MASJID AHAL-E-SUNAT WALJAMAT, MOUZA JASSOWALI TEHSIL
PASRUR through Ghulam Muhammad
S. 104(1)(i), O. XXXIX, R.2(3) & O.XLIII, R.1(r)---Disobedience of injunctive order---Effect---
Injunction order passed under O.xxxix , R.2, C.P.C. in favour of respondent, was not challenged by
the petitioners in any manner---Appeal was provided for against said order under S.104(1)(i), read
with O.XLIII, R.1(r), C.P.C., but no such appeal was filed by the petitioners---Said order, in
circumstances had attained finality---No allegation was levelled that the court had no jurisdiction to
issue the temporary injunction; in view of the unchallenged findings that the injunction had been
disobeyed, the court had the jurisdiction to take cognizance of the same and to order restoration of
possession taken in violation of the injunctive order---Mere fact that the injunction was later vacated
by the Court or that the suit itself was dismissed subsequently, would not wipe off the
Disobedience /contempt committed by the petitioner.
Citation Name : 2004 YLR 2050 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD KHALID
Side Opponent : Messrs YOUSAF SONS
----O.xxxix , Rr.1, 2, 3 & 4--Interpretation of O.xxxix , C.P.C.--Interim order---Scope---Courts under
O.xxxix , C. P. C. regulated conduct of parties during pendency of proceedings and could also order
interim sale, detention, preservation or inspection of subject matter of the suit, and direct deposit of
money--Court, on application, could discharge, vary or set aside injunctive order---Court, in case of
Disobedience or of breach of any term of injunctive order, could also attach property of the person
guilty of such Disobedience and detain such person for a term not exceeding six months---
Citation Name : 2002 CLC 459 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN
Side Opponent : PROVINCE OF SINDH
Contempt of Court Act 1976 ----Ss. 3 & 4---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.xxxix , R.2(3)--;
Contempt application---Action provided under O.xxxix , R.2(3), C.P.C.---Applicability---Application
under Ss.3 & 4 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976, was filed but the action sought through the same
was one provided in O.xxxix , R.2(3), C.P.C.---Validity---Such action could only be taken in case of
Disobedience in respect of injunction granted under O.xxxix , R.2, C.P.C.---High Court declined to
take such action in application under Ss.3 & 4 of Contempt of Court Act, 1976 in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2002 PLD 131 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : M. ADIL HAYAT KHAN
Side Opponent : GOVERNMENT OF SINDH
Constitution of Pakistan 1973 ---Art. 199---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.xxxix , R.2(3)--
Constitutional petition---Interim injunction---Disobedience of injunction granted by High Court---
Contempt of Court---Respondent University denied admission to the candidate for not producing
Permanent Residence Certificate----High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction passed
interim order whereby the respondent University was directed to grant admission without the
certificate if the candidate had otherwise come on merit---Respondent University instead of granting
the admission to the candidate tiled application seeking clarification of the injunction order and did
not pursue the application---Effect---Order passed by the High Court should have been complied
with by the respondent University without any hesitation or delay and no such application ought to
have been filed--Fact of not pursuing the application indicated that it was not bona fide and was filed
with ulterior motive to display the absolute authority of the University in granting of admission,
delay the proceedings and thereby deprive the candidate of his legitimate right to get admission in the
University on merit---By not complying with the order of High Court and tiling application seeking
clarification which was patently mala fide, the respondent University disobeyed and showed
disrespect to the order issued by the Court and thereby interfered with and prejudiced the
administration of law and justice---Official of the respondent University admitted his responsibility
for the Disobedience of Court's orders and requested for leniency---Such apology tendered by the
official respondent was defiant, not bona fide and High Court declined to accept the same---Official
respondent being officer of educational institution, High Court took a lenient view and convicted him
to detention until rising of the Court---Order passed by the respondent University was set aside and
the petition was allowed accordingly.
Citation Name : 1999 SCMR 2215 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : TALAT MAHMOOD
Side Opponent : ISMAT EHTISHATIIUL HAQ
Civil Procedure Code --Order XXXIX of C.P.C. Temporary Injunctions and Interlocutory Orders 0.
XXXIX, R. 2(3)---Disobedience or breach of terms of injunction/status quo order---Order passed by
the Court which had not passed the original order of temporary injunction under O.xxxix , R.1,
C.P.C.---Competence---Several proceedings were pending between the parties in different Courts,
and under the orders of the High Court, it was directed that the District and Sessions Judge should
entrust the civil suits pending between the parties to one Court to avoid conflicts---District and
Sessions Judge, pursuant to such order of the High Court directed that the case be transferred to the
Court of Civil Judge 'S' because at the time of passing such order Civil Judge, who had passed the
original order, had been transferred without substitute---Neither said orders of the High Court for
directing the adjudication of the case nor the order of the District Judge transferring the case was
challenged, but applicant participated in the proceedings and at no point of time raised any objection
about the competence of jurisdiction of the transferee Court to take the proceedings---No issue was
struck on the point nor any plea was taken to that effect in the memo of appeal before the High
Court---Contention that proceedings taken by the transferee Court and order passed by said Court
were illegal and without jurisdiction as the original order of status quo had been passed by some
other Court, had no substance in circumstances---Transferee Court had jurisdiction to decide the
application under O.xxxix , R.2(3), C.P.C.
Citation Name : 1997 CLC 918 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY OLD BOYS COOPERATATIVE HOUSING
SOCIETY LIMITED
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD YOUSAF QURESHI
Civil Procedure Code --Order XXXIX of C.P.C. Temporary Injunctions and Interlocutory Orders
O.xxxix , R.2(3)???Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.19???Plaintiff s application seeking
punishment to defendants for Disobedience and breach of terms of injunction order???Courts interim
order was passed to the effect that defendants should not publish any defamatory matter in respect of
plaintiff??Reasonable restrictions in terms of Art.19 of the Constitution although could be imposed
by law on the right of freedom of speech and expression in interest of glory of Islam or integrity,
security or defence of Pakistan or any part thereof, yet apparently impugned publications on the face
of it and without determination of controversy, could not be regarded as capable of violating
restrictions imposed by interim order???Factual controversies could not be decided without adequate
and unimpeachable evidence and affording opportunity of defence to person proceeded against???
Question raised in application would also arise in final determination in suit itself after recording of
evidence???Controversy raised in application would be decided at the decision of the main suit after
recording of evidence.
Citation Name : 1994 CLC 1650 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : ADIL JAFFER
Side Opponent : FARID MUHAMMAD ALI
Civil Procedure Code --Order XXXIX of C.P.C. Temporary Injunctions and Interlocutory Orders
OXXXIX, R.2 (3)---Violation of consent interim order ---Effect--Respondents against whom consent
interim order was passed by Court prima facie had violated same---Action under O.xxxix , R.2 (3),
C.P.C. could be taken against respondents for Disobedience of said order.
Citation Name : 1988 CLC 1370 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : ABDUL MAJID
Side Opponent : BASHIR AHMAD
Civil Procedure Code --Order XXXIX of C.P.C. Temporary Injunctions and Interlocutory Orders ---
O.xxxix , .R. 2(3)--Disobedience of prohibitory order--When prohibitory order was passed there was
only one defendant in suit, other defendant having been impleaded subsequent to passing of
prohibitory order--Trial Court punished both defendants for Disobedience of prohibitory order--
Appeal against such punishment was dismissed by Appellate Court below--Plea of defendants/
petitioners, that Disobedience c-f prohibitory order was established only against that defendant who
was not a party to suit at the time of issuance of prohibitory order, held, had considerable force
inasmuch as rejection of appeal of first defendant in the presence of breach of prohibitory order
having been held to have been committed by subsequently added defendant was irreconcilable with
such finding according to which first defendant could not be punished even as an abettor.
Citation Name : 1987 MLD 2090 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : Pir BAHAUDDIN SIRHINDI
Side Opponent : THE MAYOR, HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
Contempt of Court Act 1976 ---S.3--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.xxxix , R.2(3)--
Disobedience or breach of injunction granted by Court--Court granting injunction has power to take
action against contemner under O.xxxix , R.2(3), C.P.C. and petition to High Court under S.3 of Act
LXIV of 1976 does not lie.
Citation Name : 1984 CLC 2896 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : NAEIM HASSAN
Side Opponent : KARACHI METROPOLITON CORPORATION
---S.3--L.aw Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S.3--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.xxxix ,
r.2(3)--Contempt--To constitute punishable contempt Disobedience , held, must be wilful--Mere
unintentional Disobedience of judgment, order or process of Court amounted to a contempt in theory
only and did not render accused liable to punishment.---S.3--L.aw Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972),
S.3--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.xxxix , r.2(3)--Contempt--To constitute punishable
contempt Disobedience , held, must be wilful--Mere unintentional Disobedience of judgment, order
or process of Court amounted to a contempt in theory only and did not render accused liable to
punishment.
Citation Name : 1984 MLD 416 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : GHULAM HUSSAIN
Side Opponent : KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Civil Procedure Code --Order XXXIX of C.P.C. Temporary Injunctions and Interlocutory Orders ---
O.xxxix , r.3--Disobedience of injunction--Contempt of Court--Officers of respondent filing affidavit
that they had not made any development work nor attempted to disturb status quo so far as plot in
dispute was concerned--Application for contempt of Court dismissed in circumstances.--[Contempt
of Court].
Citation Name : 2008 MLD 1377 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD NAJEEB
Side Opponent : FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Defence Pak
Secretariat, Rawalpindi
Ss. 15-B, 34, 272 & 273---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.42 & 55---Civil Procedure Code (V of
1908), O.xxxix , Rr.1 & 2---Application under O.xxxix , Rr. 1 & 2, C.P.C. read with S.55, Specific
Relief Act, 1877 for grant of injunction in a suit for declaration, injunction and damages---Plaintiff, a
member of Cantonment Board, who was denotified as such, had prayed to direct the Federation of
Pakistan and the Cantonment Board to get the office of the plaintiff unlocked and hand over the same
to the plaintiff and restrain the defendants directly or indirectly from taking an adverse action against
the plaintiff, and not to disturb him in performance of his duty in his office situated in the premises of
Cantonment Board Office and prayed further that legal action be taken against the Chief Executive
Officer of the Board for having committed contempt of Court due to Disobedience /violation of the
order passed by the Court---Validity---Framing of issue and evidence was required in order to
establish the case on merits---Allegations and denial in respect of complicated question namely
whether plaintiff was holding any charge or office papers, as well as any office from which plaintiff
was said to have been dispossessed were to be inquired into---At present stage plaintiff's word was
not supported by a single document, which could prima facie, show that he had been dispossessed or
any violation or Disobedience had been made, for which, at the first instance, show-cause notice was
to be issued and charge was to be framed and proceeded separately in accordance with law, as
plaintiff had to disclose full particulars and to show particular incident, with particular date and time,
witnessed by somebody else, as only on general allegations no body could be punished---Questions
as to whether order passed by the authority in respect of removal of plaintiff and appointment of
another person was legal, proper and in accordance with law; and whether order was based upon
some reasons and whether order was passed after service of notice and providing an opportunity of
being heard or not, or there was any mala fide on the part of defendants, all being complicated
questions were to be decided on merits and required framing of issues and evidence---Plaintiff, in
circumstances, had no case nor balance of convenience was in his favour nor he would suffer a loss,
which could not be compensated in terms of money, as such applications for injunction and
Contempt of Court against the Chief Executive Officer were dismissed.
Citation Name : 2007 YLR 3131 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE
Side Opponent : ANWAR SHAH PHOOL BADSHAH MEHARBAN
---O.xxxix , R.2(3)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---
Disobedience of injunction order---Action against--- Contempt application---Respondent had sought
action against four persons who allegedly disobeyed the final order of the court---Respondent had
alleged that four persons were responsible for raiding his house who after demolishing his house, had
taken away his valuables--Petitioner had alleged that respondents had failed to perform their duties
by not removing the encroachment caused by respondent in front of petitioner's plot---Operative
order of the court had shown that respondents were directed to remove encroachment from the area
forming part of the road alignment and as regarded the rest of the area, petitioner was allowed to seek
appropriate remedy under the law---Respondents had contended that contemners had transgressed the
direction of the court by demolishing his house as well---Such action might be in excess of the
direction given by the court and even otherwise unlawful; however, it was doubtful whether, it would
amount to defiance or Disobedience of the order of the court---Intricate factual controversy appeared
to be involved and High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction was not an appropriate forum for
resolving the same---Matter had not been pursued by respondent with due diligence, contempt
application was dismissed.
Citation Name : 2006 CLC 1193 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD MEHRBAN
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE
--S. 42---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.xxxix , Rr.2 &
3---Suit for permanent injunction---Stay order, violation of- Petitioner along with his suit for
permanent injunction also filed application ,for temporary injunction---Trial Court issued stay order
which, later on, was recalled on objection of other side---District Judge, on appeal, issued temporary
injunction which was served upon respondents accordingly, but they`, despite stay order, allegedly
raised construction over the suit-land and violated order of District Judge--Application filed by
petitioners for initiating contempt of Court proceedings against respondents was dismissed by
District Judge and proceedings against respondents were dropped---Petitioners filed appeal before
High Court which was also dismissed---Petition for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court had been
filed by petitioners to assail impugned judgment of High Court---Disputed point of fact in case was
as to whether alleged construction made on the suit-land had been made before or after the issuance
of stay order by the District Judge---Contempt proceedings, in such-like cases, were not initiated---
Without a detailed probe, it could not be said that respondents had wilfully disobeyed order of the
Court because to constitute a punishable contempt, a case of wilful Disobedience had to be made---
Two Courts below had not agreed to the version of the petitioners--Very strong grounds were
required to grant leave particularly when there was concurrent finding of fact recorded by two Courts
below---In absence of any valid reason to dispute findings of the Courts below, petition for leave to
appeal, was dismissed.
Citation Name : 2004 CLC 365 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : FAZAL KARIM
Side Opponent : FATEH BEGUM
----O. XXXIX, Rr. 1, 2(3) & O.XLIII, R.1(2)---Temporary injunction, grant of---Violation---
Application by plaintiffs seeking temporary injunction pending their suit was disposed of restraining
the defendant from alienating suit property .but allowing him to complete his construction by
erecting lintel at his own cost and risk---Plaintiffs aggrieved of the order of Trial Court; filed appeal
before Appellate Court which on the same day, suspended the operation of order passed by Trial
Court---Pending appeal, plaintiffs filed application under O.xxxix , R.2(3), C.P.C. for initiation of
proceedings of Disobedience of order passed by Trial Court against the defendant on the ground that
he being aware of suspension order passed by Appellate Court intentionally completed his
construction work and thus had violated order exposing himself to penal action---Defendant denied
the allegation of plaintiffs---Validity--Appellate Court by its order having suspended order passed by
Trial Court, no prohibitory order was in the field--Appellate Court having not restrained defendant
from raising any construction over the suit property, no question of proceedings against the defendant
under provisions of O.xxxix , R.2(3), C.P.C, would arise---Plaintiff could not say that by suspension
of order of Trial Court by the Appellate Court .interim order restraining defendant from raising
construction had revived---In absence of any binding order, proceedings under O. XXXIX, R. 2(3),
C.P.C. against defendant were not warranted ---Statu quo order would become operative, the moment
it was passed whereas other injunctive orders would become effective from the time said orders were
served on the parties to whom those were directed---Suspension order would take effect from the
date , of its service of person to whom it was directed---Besides there was no binding injunctive
order restraining the defendant from carrying on with construction work since suspension order
passed by the Appellate Court was served on plaintiff three days after its passing whereas lintel by
defendant was completed by the defendant before one day of service of said suspension order---
Defendant, in circumstances, had not violated the order of Appellate Court---Proceedings under
O.xxxix , R.2(3), C.P.C. were not warranted and order directing demolition of construction and
imposing fine on defendant was not sustainable at law.