BAGH MALL vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI
This matter arose from two miscellaneous applications filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan: a contempt application filed by the petitioner alleging that the respondents had violated a stay order regarding the possession of disputed land, and an application by the respondents seeking the vacation of the said stay order. The respondents contended that the petitioner had obtained the stay order by concealing material facts, specifically that the petitioner had taken possession of the land forcibly. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that if the true facts had been disclosed by the petitioner at the time of the hearing, the stay order would not have been granted. Consequently, the Court vacated the stay order and declined to proceed against the respondents for contempt of court. The case establishes the principle that interim relief or stay orders obtained through the non-disclosure or concealment of material facts are liable to be vacated, and subsequent allegations of contempt for violating such orders may not be entertained.
- Whether a stay order obtained by a party through the non-disclosure of material facts is liable to be vacated?
- Can a party be held liable for contempt of court for violating a stay order that was obtained by the other party through misrepresentation or concealment of facts?
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-- This order shall dispose of Cr.P. No. 38 of 1981 and C.M.P. No. 742 of 1981 in C.P.S.L.A. No.487 of 1981. The first is a contempt application by Bhag Mal and the second is an application for vacation of stay order, filed by Muhammad Shafi, etc., (in the main petition).
2. C.P. No.487 of 1981 has been filed by Bhag Mal who applied and obtained stay order with respect to possession of the land in dispute on 4-9-1981. Through Cr.P. No. 38 of 1981, he has alleged that the respondents have taken possession of the land in question in violation of the above-mentioned stay order and are thus guilty of the contempt of Court. The respondents have on the other hand filed C . M . P. No. 742 of 1981 praying vacation of the said stay order, on the ground that Bagh Mal had taken possession of the land in question forcibly, and had therefore, obtained stay order from this Court without disclosing the true facts of the case.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we feel that' if the true facts had been disclosed by the respondents at the time of hearing of the stay application, stay order would not have been granted to them. The stay order is, therefore, vacated. At the same time for the same reasons, we do not wish to proceed against the respondents in contempt matter.
Both the miscellaneous applications stand disposed of accordingly.
S. Q.Stay order vacated.
Cited by 1 case
- G.M. NIZAMUDDIN Versus BADAR RAHIM 1989 CLC 2090