Pakistan Case Law
1985 SCMR 177

Mst. ASGHARI BEGUM And Others vs SARDAR MUHAMMAD And Other

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1985 SCMR 177
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.66-R of 1984
Date1984-10-20
Judge(s)Shafiur Rehman, M.S.H. Quraishi and Mian Burhanuddin Khan
Authored byM.S.H. Quraishi
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

The petitioners, heirs of a former occupant of a godown, filed a petition alleging contempt of court against the respondents. The core dispute arose from a 1961 Settlement Commissioner's order, which declared the godown separate property to be auctioned, a decision that attained finality upon the dismissal of a petition for leave to appeal by the Supreme Court in 1972. The petitioners alleged that during the pendency of that litigation, the respondents fraudulently obtained the transfer of the property through a forged and ante-dated C.S. Form under Scheme No. VIII, subsequently obtaining a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) and executing sales of the property. The petitioners contended that these actions constituted disobedience of the Supreme Court's 1972 order. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners' allegations regarding the forgery of the transfer form and the order of transfer required an extensive inquiry into disputed questions of fact. Consequently, the Court determined that such matters could not be adjudicated for the first time in contempt proceedings. The petition was dismissed as no case for contempt was established.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Can allegations of forgery and fraud regarding property transfer be adjudicated for the first time in contempt proceedings?
  • Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction to conduct an inquiry into disputed questions of fact during contempt proceedings?
contempt of courtdisputed questions of factsettlement propertyPermanent Transfer DeedScheme No. VIIItransfer of property

ORDER

M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.-- The petitioners are the heirs of Umar Din who, it is claimed, was one of the four persons in joint possession of godown No. U/218-A, Mochi Bazar, Rawalpindi. Umar Din and the other occupants sought transfer of the portions of the godown in their respective possession but the Settlement Commissioner, exercising the powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, by order, dated 6-7-1961 held th9t the godown was a separate property and directed that the same be disposed of by auction. This order acquired finality when the challenge-to it failed ultimately by the dismissal of Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 72 of 1972 on 4-7-1972. During the continuance of the litigation, however, Muhammad Sharif (respondent No.2) son of Sardar Muhammad (respondent No.1), obtained transfer of the godown on 6-12-1968 on the basis of his C.S. Form filed under Scheme No. VIII. It is submitted that Muhammad Sharif was neither in possession of the godown nor a claimant and as such he could not submit the C.S. Form which, according to the petitioners, was even otherwise forged, fake and ante-dated. Sardar Muhammad by association with his son, obtained P. T. D. In his favour on 12-3-1973. On 28-11-1973, he sold the godown in favour of Muhammad Rafiq (deceased and predecessor-in-interest of respondents 3 to 8) who later transferred back 50$ of the godown in favour of Sardar Muhammad by another sale- deed. On these facts it is submitted that Sardar Muhammad, Muhammad Sharif and Muhammad Rafiq committed contempt of this Court by not obeying its order, dated 4-7-1972 and, therefore, the respondents be punished accordingly.

2. The case of the petitioners is based upon the assertion that the form filed by Muhammad Sharif under Scheme No. VIII was forged and so was the order of transfer made in his favour on G-12-1968.

The above assertions cannot obviously be examined for the first the by this Court as they require an enquiry into questions of fact. No case is, therefore, made out for proceeding against the respondents fort contempt. The petition is dismissed.

Cited by 1 case

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