MOHARRAM ALL vs THE STATE AND Another
This matter arises from a petition challenging an order of detention imposed for the alleged violation of an ad interim injunction. The core legal question concerns the appropriate penalty for the disobedience of a temporary injunction order issued during civil proceedings. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the penalty of four months' detention in a civil prison imposed by the trial court was excessive under the circumstances. Converting the petition into an appeal, the Court ruled that the period of rigorous imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner was sufficient to meet the ends of justice and accordingly reduced the detention period to that already undergone. The key principle laid down is that appellate courts may review and mitigate disproportionate penalties imposed for the disobedience of interim court orders.
- Whether the penalty imposed for the disobedience of a temporary injunction can be reduced by an appellate court?
- Is detention in a civil prison the appropriate remedy for the wilful disregard of a status quo order?
- Can a petition against an order punishing for the violation of an injunction be converted into an appeal?
- Order XXXIX Rule 2(3), Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
1. ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-The facts leading to the present petition are that Malik Muhammad Aslam respondent No. 2, filed a suit against Moharram A.I, petitioner and five others for a declaration that he could not be turned out from the room occupied by him in the respondent's hotel, without due process of law. Alongwith the suit he filed an application for temporary injunction. Ad interim injunction was granted by the trial Court and notice is stated to have been served on the petitioner.
2. Malik Muhammad Aslam, respondent then filed an application under Order XXXIX, rule 2(3) on the ground that the petitioner/defendant had wilfully disregarded the order of the Court, with regard to the maintenance of status quo. The peti--tioner, of course, denied having violated the said order.
3. After recording the evidence the learned Civil Judge ordered his detention in a civil prison for a period of four months. It is alleged that instead of detaining the petitioner in the civil prison the relevant official detained him in a jail, where he had already suffered 1 month's R. I.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and find that the penalty imposed by the learned Civil Judge for disobedience of the court's order is rather heavy. Considering that he has already under--gone one month's R. I., instead of his detention in the civil prison, we are of the view that the period of detention already suffered by him is sufficient to meet the ends of justice.
4. The period of detention, therefore, after converting this petition into appeal is reduced to that already undergone by him. Wit this observation the petition stands disposed of.