DOST MUHAMMAD and others vs NAZAR HUSSIAN and others
This matter concerns a contempt petition filed by defendant judgment-debtors against plaintiff decree-holders and two police officers, alleging interference with possession of land despite a stay order issued by the Supreme Court. The underlying dispute involves a suit for possession of land decreed in 1978, where subsequent execution proceedings and appellate orders were challenged before the Supreme Court. The petitioners alleged that the warrant of possession was improperly executed on 4-4-1983 and that the respondents continued to interfere with their possession despite the Supreme Court's interim stay order passed on 10-4-1983. The core legal question was whether the respondents' actions constituted contempt of the Supreme Court's authority. The Court held that the alleged interference occurred on 4-4-1983, a date prior to the Supreme Court's interim order, meaning the actions were governed by the executing Court's orders at that time. Consequently, the Court determined that the controversy was factual and fell within the jurisdiction of the executing Court rather than the Supreme Court. The petition was dismissed as no case for contempt was established.
- Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction to initiate contempt proceedings for acts occurring before its stay order was issued?
- Is a dispute regarding the factual execution of a warrant of possession a matter for the Supreme Court or the executing court?
- Can a contempt petition be maintained when the alleged interference occurred while the executing court's orders were in effect?
- Article 204(2), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
- Section 9, Contempt of Courts Act 1976
ORDER
1. ' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.-- The defendant judgment-debtors, by this application under Article 204(2) of the Constitution read with section 9 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1976 seek appropriate action against the plair.Tiff decree-holders and two police officers.
2. ' The plaintiffs suit for possession of 1,026 Kanals 4 Marlas land in village Shaman, Tehsil Mailsi, District Vehari, was decreed on 6-3-1978. The deposit was actually made on 22-3-1979 and the delay was condoned by the first appellate Court by order dated 30-3-1983. This order was challenged in this Court. On 10-4-1983 an interim order was passed staying the operation of the decree as well as the order of the High Court dated 30-3-1983. In its compliance, it is said that the executing Court directed the return of warrant of possession unexecuted. It was found that the warrant of possession was executed on 4-4-1983.
3. ' The petitioner contents that the warrant was never properly executed, that petitioners continue to be in possession and enjoyment of the property and that the respondents are interfering in their possession in spite of an order of this Court.
4. From the facts and dates given above it appears that the controversy is factual and relates to what happened on 4-4-1983 when no order of this Court was in the field. It was the executing Court whose orders were then it the field. Any controversy relating to it ' can be decided and has to be decided by the executing Court No case for proceeding in contempt of this Court is made out. Hence this petition is dismissed.