Sree GOUR NITAI SAHA vs ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (REVENUE), BAKERGANJ AND 5 Other
The petitioner filed a civil suit for a permanent injunction against the Province of East Pakistan regarding certain land. After initial failures in the trial and appellate courts, the petitioner obtained an ad interim injunction from the High Court of East Pakistan. Subsequently, the petitioner alleged that the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Bakerganj, violated this injunction by approving a settlement of the suit land, leading to a contempt application. The High Court rejected the contempt application, finding no case was made out. The petitioner sought leave to appeal against this decision. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, observing that the High Court was satisfied that no contempt occurred. Crucially, the Supreme Court noted that the specific officer alleged to have violated the injunction was not made a party to the contempt proceedings in the High Court, nor was he impleaded in the petition for special leave. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the High Court's decision was justified, as the absence of the alleged contemnor as a party was sufficient grounds for rejecting the application.
- Can a contempt application be maintained if the alleged contemnor is not made a party to the proceedings?
- Is the Supreme Court required to interfere when the High Court has already determined that no case for contempt is made out?
1. M. R. KHAN, J.-The petitioner brought Title Suit No. 4 of 1966 in the Second Court of Subordinate Judge, Barisal against the Province of East Pakistan, represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Bakerganj, for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from making any settlement of the suit land to any body else. The petitioner prayed for an ad interim injunction, but the prayer was rejected both by the trial Court and the appellate Court. The petitioner then moved a revisional application in the High Court of East Pakistan and succeeded in obtaining an ad interim injunction.
2. It was alleged that Mr. K. M. A. Rab, the then Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Bakerganj approved settlement of the suit land in spite of the ad interim injunction. Accordingly, the petitioner made an application in the High Court for taking action for contempt of Court. The learned Judges of a Division Bench of the High Court rejected the application on the ground that no case for contempt was made out. The present petition is directed against the decision of the High Court.
3. It appears from the order of High Court that the learned Judges having gone through the application for contempt were satisfied that no case for contempt was made out. When the High Court itself found that it was not in contempt the interference of this Court is not called for. It was stated in the petition that Mr. K. M. A. Rab, the then Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), approved settlement of the suit land in spite of the ad interim injunction, but he was not made a party in the application for contempt filed in the High Court. Mr. Rab is not also a party in the petition for special leave. This fact alone was sufficient for the rejection of the contempt application by the High Court.
Cited by 3 cases
- Abdul Baqi, etc vs Haji Khan Muhammad, etc 2022 SCP 176, 2022 PLD Supreme Court 546
- SIKANDAR HAMEED vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM KAMBOH and others 2020 PLD Lahore 38
- WEST PAKISTAN WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN - vs CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION 1979 PLD Supreme Court 912