BANK OF PUNJAB Versus MUHAMMAD PERVEZ MALIK

ORDER

This is a petition under Article 204 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 read with sections 3/4 of the Contempt of Court Act, alleging violation of this Court's order 26-3-2000 and seeking proceedings for contempt against the respondents. The background briefly stated in which this petition has been filed is as under: --

Writ Petition No.8264 of 2000 instituted by the respondents when came up for hearing before this Court on 11-5-2000, the respondents therein were directed to submit report and parawise comments. The Bank of Punjab and its Chief Manager were respondents Nos.2 and 3 in the said petition and were represented on the succeeding dates of hearing. It was on 26-5-2000 that an offer was made by the writ petitioners for settling the matter with the Bank of Punjab. The learned counsel for the Bank, after instructions stated that the proposal made by the writ petitioners was acceptable to the Bank. The petition was then disposed of. A contempt petition was thereafter brought by the Bank alleging the non-adherence to the said agreement/undertaking. That contempt petition was disposed of on 19-10-2000. This is again a petition for contempt.

2. It is contended by the learned counsel that the offer and acceptance was in the nature of an undertaking given to the Court, as a consequence whereof the writ petition was disposed of on 26-5-2000, which undertaking having not been fully complied with, they should be proceeded for contempt and punished. Reference has been made to Naveed Nawazish Malik v. Ghulam Rasool Bhatti and another (1997 SCMR 193), Saleemuddin and another v. Sharfuddin and others (AIR 1980 Delhi 39) and Bajranglal Gangadhar Khemka and another v. Kapurchand Ltd. (AIR 1990 Bombay 336) that undertaking given to the Court if not complied with by the party, proceedings for contempt can be taken. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that it was an arrangement agreed to by the parties, out of Court, which was merely noted by the Court and petition disposed of. According to him it was not an undertaking given to the Court, therefore, no proceedings for contempt are called for. Reference has been made to Naveed Nawazish Malik v. Ghulam Rasool Bhatti and another (1997 SCMR 193). It is further contended that in a matter of alleged contempt, it is the discretion of the Court, which is to be exercised with restraint acid not as a routine.

3. During the course of hearing it has come to light that both the parties had instituted suits before the learned Banking Court, which have been decided. The suit filed by the Bank is stated to have been decreed and the suit filed by the respondents has been dismissed and the execution of the decree is in process before the learned Banking Court. The, respondents are stated to have filed appeals against the decrees, which are statedly pending. It has also been stated that substantial amount has already been paid by the respondents and only a partial claim of the Bank remains unsatisfied, which is subject-matter of the above mentioned litigation, case of the Naveed Nawazish Malik v. Ghulam Rasool Bhatti and another reported in and 1997 SCMR 193 has been referred by the learned counsel for the both sides. There is no cavil with the principle stated in the judgment that "to disobey or disregard an order, direction or process of Court which a person is legally bound to obey, wilful breach of an undertaking given to a Court, any act intended to or tend to bring the authority of the Court or the administration of law into disrespect or disrepute and to obstruct, interfere, interrupt or prejudice the process of law or the due course of any judicial proceedings fall within the category of contempt of Court". It is however, to be seen in the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case whether any undertaking was given to the Court, which was being violated by the party. The distinction between an undertaking given to a party and undertaking given to a Court was noted in the said judgment and it was observed that "in the former case the Court records compromise between the parties and passes a decree/order and it does not amount to an undertaking to Court. Therefore, if to such a case breach is committed by any of the parties it will not amount to contempt of Court. But a party promises to the Court or gives an undertaking to the Court which is recorded or on the basis of such undertaking order is passed then breach of such undertaking shall be contempt of Court". In the present case the tenor of the order passed on 26-5-2000 eminently shows that it was an arrangement arrived at between the parties through offer and acceptance made and accepted, which was merely noted by the Court. There is no order affirming the said arrangement between the parties, which could in any way be construed as undertaking given to the Court and accepted by it. The petition had been disposed of in view of agreement and arrangement between the parties. Suffice it to state that even the petitioner-Bank felt inclined to approach the Banking Court by instituting a suit for recovery and did not wholly bank upon the so called undertaking before the Court. Thus no case for initiation of proceedings of contempt has been made out. In view of the main issue as to the respective liability being pending, I do not consider it appropriate to dilate upon the matter any more. In the circumstances, I find no justification for proceeding for any such alleged contempt.

In view of the above, this petition is dismissed.

H.B.T./B-120/L Petition dismissed.