P L D 1995 Supreme Court 572

Present. Muhammad Munir Khan and Mir Hazar Khan Khoso JJ

AMAN and 5 others---Petitioners
versus
MUHAMMAD ALI and 8 Others---Respondents

Criminal Original Petition No.10-f, of 1995 in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.870-L of
1993, decided on 1st August, 1995.

(Muhammad Munir Khan, J)

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---

----0. XXLIX, R.2(3)---Contempt of Court Act (XLIV of 1976), S.6---Wesi Pakistan Land
Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S.81---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.204 & 187---
Contempt of Court---Growing tendency on the part of litigants to file frivolous applications for
Contempt of Court under O.XXXIX, R.2(3), C.P.C., Contempt of Court Act, 1976, S.6 and
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.204 against public servants, who in discharge of their
official/judicial duties pass orders adversely affecting their interest, was disapproved and
condemned by Supreme Court---Supreme Court laid down guidelines for subordinate Courts
with regard to summoning of Government Officials, which were binding on all the Courts under
Art.187, Constitution of Pakistan.

Supreme Court condemned and disapproved the growing tendency on the part of litigants
of filing frivolous applications for contempt proceedings under Order XXXIX, Rule 2(3), C.P.C.,
Contempt of Court Act, 1976 read with Article 204 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of
Pakistan, 1973, against public servants who in discharge of their official/judicial duties pas.
orders adversely affecting their interest- The applications are filed with the obvious object to
harass, humiliate and drag Government officials into Courts, The vague stay/injunction orders
passed by the Courts are also the cause of filing contempt applications under Order XXXIX,
Rule 2(3), C.P.C. in the Civil Courts. Supreme Court noted with concern that the Civil Courts
while disposing of stay/injunction applications frequently pass "status quo" orders which are
often misused by the parties. A party intending to take unlawful possession of disputed property
having obtained "status quo" order from Civil Court, in its garb, attempts to dispossess the
opposite party by force. Instances are not wanting where in such a situation the parties take law
into their hands and serious offences like murder are committed and then parties file applications
for contempt proceedings blaming each other for breach of "status quo "order. Supreme Court
also noted that the Civil Courts invariably summon Government officials in contempt
proceedings under Order XXXIX, Rule 2(3), C.P.C. at the instance of litigants even though those
officers/officials were not arrayed as parties in the suit or stay application. In certain cases the
Revenue officials are summoned in applications under Order XXXIX, Rule 2(3), C.P.C. who tale
proceedings relating to preparation/change in Khasra Girdawari, Jamabandis, attestation of
mutation, appraisement of produce, demarcation and partition of land in dispute, in performance
of their official and legal functions as visualised by the Land Revenue Act or the Tenancy Act.
The Revenue Officers/officials are summoned even in matters in which Civil Courts do not have
jurisdiction to interfere with the proceedings taken by them. There is a legal bar contained in
section 81 of the Land Revenue Act for taking any action against the Revenue Officers in
relation to the duties performed by them under the relevant law.

Summoning of the Government officials, instead of serving useful purpose, disturbs

smooth functioning of department concerned. Supreme Court laid down guidance for subordinate
Courts as under:--

(i) Before issuing stay/injunction orders, Courts must carefully examine and consider the
documents relied upon by the parties in proof of title, possession etc., of the property in
dispute. In case of doubt, the Court may appoint Commission for verification of actual
position at site. A little care on the part of the Civil Courts would save citizens from
untold hardships and also help maintaining public peace and tranquillity.

(ii) Status quo orders should nut be passed in vague and general terms. It should clearly
state as to what extent does it operate. Whether it prohibits interference in ones possession or
alienation of property by a party, raising of construction on the property, or change in the status
and character of the property pending decision of case. The stay/injunction must be unequivocal
and clear leaving no room for any ambiguity to provide an excuse for its misuse by parties.. .

(iii) Government officials in contempt proceedings initiated "at the instance of litigants under
Order XXXIX, Rule 2(3), C.P.C. should not be summoned if they were not arrayed as party in
the suit or against whom no stay/injunction a was issued. The summoning of Government
officials in Courts creates problems for the Department concerned not only the official work
suffers but also the Government officials are unnecessarily dragged in the Courts.

These guidelines being binding on all Courts under Article 187 of the, "''4 Constitution,
Supreme Court warned that serious view of violation thereof N shall be taken.

Gulzar Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate and S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate-on Record (absent) for
Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 1st August, 1995.

ORDER

MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.--Through this Criminal Original petition Gaman and
others/petitioners have prayed for initiating contempt proceedings against Muhammad Ali,
Naib-Tehsildar, Halqa Jampur, District .Rajanpur, and 8 others on the allegations that while
deciding Mutation No.90f afresh Naib-Tehsildar/respondent No.l, on account of connivance with
private respondents Nos.2 to 9 had disregarded the order dated 16-5-1994 passed by this Court in
Civil Petition for Leave to appeal No.870-L of 1993, whereby Revenue Officers were directed to
take into consideration some factors noted in the order- before passing any orders in the
aforesaid mutation."
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. We are not persuaded to initiate
contempt proceedings against the Revenue officer and other respondents. The Revenue Officer
was no party in the writ petition and in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.870-L of 1993.
Mutation proceedings are of , summary nature. In the order passed by him in the mutation
proceedings, he has made reference to the order of this Court dated 16-9-7994. He has cancelled
the mutation on the ground that the sale of the land was nor. for construction purposes and as
such was violative of the provisions of Martial Law Regulation 115. The appeal against his order
is pending before the competent Court as told by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It seems
to us that the present application has maliciously been filed with intent to humiliate and harass
the Naib-Tehsildar, opposite-party and to influence the appellate Court seized of appeal against
order of Naib-Tehsildw. So, this application is dismissed as being malicious and frivolous, .

3. Before parting with the order we feel constrained to condemn and disapprove the growing
tendency on the part of litigants of filing frivolous applications for contempt proceedings under
Order XXXIX, Rule 2(3), C.P.C.,

Contempt of Court Act, 1976 read with Article 204 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of
Pakistan, 1973, against public servants who in discharge of their official/judicial duties pass
orders adversely affecting their interest. The applications are filed with the obvious object to
harass, humiliate and drag Government officials in Courts. The vague stay/injunction orders
passed by the Courts are also the cause of filing contempt applications under Order XXXIX,
Rule (3), C.P.C. in the Civil Courts. We have noted with concern that the Civil Courts while
disposing of stay/injunction applications frequently pass "status quo" orders which are often
misused by the parties. A party intending to take unlawful possession of disputed property
having obtained "status quo" order from Civil Court, in its garb, attempts to dispossess the
opposite-party by force. Instances are not wanting where in such a situation the parties take law
into their hands and serious offences like murder are committed and then parties file applications
for contempt proceedings blaming each other for breach of "status quo" order. We have also
noted that the Civil Courts invariably summon Government officials in contempt proceedings
under Order XXXIX, Rule 2(3), C.P.C. at the instance of litigants even though those
officers/officials were not arrayed as parties in the suit or stay application. In certain cases the
Revenue officials are summoned in applications under Order XXXIX, Rule 2(3), C.P.C. who
take proceedings relating to preparation/change in Khasra Girdawari, Jamabandis, attestation of
mutation, appraisement of produce, demarcation and partition of land in dispute, in
performance of their official and legal functions as visualised by the Land Revenue Act or
the Tenancy Act. The Revenue Officers/officials are summoned even in matters in which
Civil Courts do not have jurisdiction to interfere with the proceedings taken by them. There is a
legal bar contained in section 81 of the Land Revenue Act for taking any action against the
Revenue Officers in relation to the duties performed by them under the relevant law.

Summoning of the Government officials instead of serving useful p disturbs smooth functioning
of department concerned. So for the guidance of the subordinate Courts it is hereby laid down:--

"Before issuing stay/injunction orders, Courts must carefully examine and consider the
documents relied upon by the parties in proof of title, possession etc., of the property in dispute.
In case of doubt, the Court ' ; may appoint Commission for verification of actual position at site.
A little care on the part of the Civil Courts would save citizens from untold hardships and also
help maintaining public peace and tranquillity.

(ii) Status quo orders should not be passed in vague and general terms. It should clearly state as
to what extent does it operate. Whether it prohibits interference in one's possession or
alienation of property by a party, raising of construction on the property, or change in the
status and character of the property pending, decision of case. The stay/injunction must be
unequivocal and clear leaving no room for any, ambiguity thereby providing an excuse for
its misuse by parties.

(iii) Government officials in contempt proceedings initiated at the instance of litigants under
Order XXXIX, Rule 2(3), C.P.C. should not be summoned if they were not arrayed as party
in the suit or against whom no stay/injunction was issued. The summoning of Government
officials in Courts creates problems for the Department concerned; not only the official work
suffers but also the Government Officials are unnecessarily dragged in the Courts._

Needless to say that these guidelines are binding on all the Courts, under Article 187 of
the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973,1 and serious view of violation thereof
shall be taken.

M,B.A./G-5211/S Order accordingly.