Mirza MAQBOOL AHMAD vs SHABIR HUSSAIN SHAH And 3 Other
This matter concerns contempt of court proceedings initiated by the petitioner against the respondents, who were legal heirs of a deceased party in a previously decided Supreme Court appeal. The core legal question was whether the respondents and their counsel committed contempt by filing a civil suit challenging the property transfer order (P.T.O.) and the inclusion of specific property in the amended permanent transfer deed (P.T.D.), despite the Supreme Court having already conclusively adjudicated the entitlement of the parties in the earlier appeal. The respondents had sought declaratory relief in a lower court, which led to an interim injunction against the petitioner, prompting the contempt application. Upon review, the Court examined the conduct of the respondents and their counsel, noting that the suit attempted to re-litigate issues already settled by the Supreme Court. However, as the respondents and their counsel expressed unconditional apology, contrition, and remorse for their actions, the Court accepted these as sufficient amends. Consequently, the Court discharged the contempt notices, emphasizing that while judicial orders must be respected, genuine remorse can mitigate contemptuous conduct.
- Can a party file a civil suit to challenge a property transfer order that has already been conclusively adjudicated by the Supreme Court?
- Does filing a suit that attempts to re-litigate a settled matter constitute contempt of court?
- Can an unconditional apology and expression of remorse serve as sufficient grounds to discharge a contempt of court notice?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.--Notice for contempt was issued to the respondents Shabir Hussain Shah and three others, who were the legal heirs of deceased respondent Syed Bachal Shah in Civil Appeal No.125 of 1975, which was accepted by this Court on 11th of June, 1983, and a review against that order was also rejected on 13th of December, 1983.
2. It is of significance to mention here that in ground (h) of the review petition a plea which was not raised at the appeal stage was taken which runs as under:- "That in any event the P.T.O. Issued is not in accordance with the situation at site. The property in occupation of S. Bachal Shah as found by the Settlement Authorities is situate over both Survey Numbers 1800 and 1801. The two properties have been found to be amalgamated and they have been divided horizontally. However, the P.T.O. Proceeds on the basis of vertical division which is not the case of any party and is patently `erroneous. This aspect of the matter has been overlooked. "
3. Subsequently the legal heirs of Syed Bachal Shah filed a suit, the plaint of which was drafted by Mr. Faiz Muhammad Soomro, Advocate, seeking a declaratory relief to the effect that the order of inclusion of property No.B-1800 in the amended P.T.D. Was void, illegal, mala fide and without jurisdiction, and, therefore, it was not binding on the plaintiffs-contemners.
4. The Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad, rejected the plaint on the ground that this Court had conclusively decided the entitlement of the parties, but, on appeal, the District Judge, Hyderabad, while entertaining the appeal granted an interim injunction restraining defendant No.3, who was the appellant in the appeal before this Court, from transferring or encumbering the suit-property bearing No. B-1800 Hyderabad of interfering with the possession of the plaintiff s-contemners over a part of it which was in their possession. It was in these circumstances that defendant No.3, now the petitioner before us, filed an application for contempt against the plaintiffs---contemners.
5. By another order of the Court dated 28-1-1987, similar notice was also issued to Mr. Faiz Muhammad Soomro, Advocate, who had drafted and filed the suit on behalf of the plaintiffs- contemners. We were surprised to notice from his explanation that there was no reference to the grounds of review petition and the order rejecting it from amongst the documents brought to his notice as essentially the merits of the suit turned on ground (h) referred to earlier and its rejection by our order. He was represented by the same counsel before us and although, according to him, the controversy in the appeal rested on CS.No.B-1801, he was unable to explain as to the outcome of the CS No. B-1800 which was finally transferred to A.I Muhammad and a writ petition challenging that transfer was dismissed thus concluding the controversy finally.
6. As the situation now stands retrieved and the contemners have shown contrition and remorse we would accept the unconditional apology as sufficient amends and discharge the notices against them.
7. K . B . A . / M-193 / SNotice discharged.