Pakistan Case Law
1988 SCMR 361

MUHAMMAD HASNAIN IBRAHIM Versus MUHAMMAD RANA CIVILJUDGE/RENT CONTROLLER

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1988 SCMR 361
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Criminal Original Petition No.58-R in Civil Appeal No.101 of 1987
Date1987-12-19
Judge(s)Aslam Riaz Hussain, Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood dan
Authored bySaar Saood Jan
ResultOrder accordingly
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter arises from a petition seeking the initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents. During the proceedings, an undertaking was given by the Advocate-on-Record representing the respondents, through their special attorney, that the respondents would not eject the petitioners from the disputed house pursuant to a specific ejectment order until the final decision of two pending civil suits between the parties. It was further undertaken that if an appeal is filed following the decision of those suits, the execution of the ejectment order would remain subject to any interim order passed by the first appellate court. In light of this binding undertaking, the petitioners' counsel did not press the contempt petition. The Supreme Court of Pakistan disposed of the petition accordingly, while noting and emphasizing the High Court Chief Justice's direction for the trial court to expedite the pending suits on a day-to-day basis and conclude them promptly.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Can a contempt petition be disposed of based on an undertaking given by the respondents regarding the subject matter of pending litigation?
  • What effect does an undertaking not to execute an ejectment order pending civil suits have on a contempt petition?
  • How should trial courts handle proceedings when directed by the High Court to conduct a trial on a day-to-day basis?
contempt of courtundertakingejectmentcivil suitsinterim orderexpeditious trial

ORDER

SAAR SAOOD JAN, J.- -In this petition for initiating action under the contempt law against the respondents, an undertaking has been given by Mr. Mahmood Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record, who represents respondent No.2 as well as respondent No.3 through his special attorney, Mst. Zarina Shah, that till the decision of the two civil suits which are pending between the parties at present the said respondents will not eject the petitioners from the house in dispute in pursuance of the order of ejectment dated 26-1-1980, passed by the Additional District Judge, Lahore and, further, that after the decision of the said suits, in the event an appeal is preferred, the execution of the said order will be subject to the interim order, if any, which may be made by the first appellate Court. In view of this undertaking, learned counsel for the petitioners does not press this petition. It is disposed of accordingly.

2. We understand that the learned Chief Justice of the High Court has directed the trial Court to proceed with the trial of the two suits on day to day basis. The learned trial Judge should in compliance with that direction, expedite the trial and endeavour to, conclude it at a very early date.

M.I. /M-283/8 Order accordingly.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.