PROVINCE OF N. W.F.P. And Another vs ABDUR RAHMAN, FOREST
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Peshawar High Court judgment that dismissed a Constitution Petition filed by the Province of N.W.F.P. against a show-cause notice issued by a Civil Judge in Lahore regarding contempt proceedings. The High Court had dismissed the petition on the grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, noting the issuing authority operated outside its jurisdiction. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners argued that the High Court possessed jurisdiction because the contempt proceedings were being executed within its territorial limits and contended that contempt proceedings are not a valid mechanism for enforcing a civil decree. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the constitutional challenge was premature. The Court reasoned that the petitioners could raise all legal and factual defenses directly before the Civil Judge issuing the notice. Furthermore, the Court noted that any contempt action would ultimately require a reference to the High Court, where the petitioners would have a full opportunity to present their arguments, rendering immediate constitutional intervention unnecessary and inappropriate at that stage.
- Can a High Court exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 over a notice issued by a court located outside its territorial jurisdiction?
- Is it appropriate for a High Court to interfere in constitutional jurisdiction against a show-cause notice for contempt when the petitioner has an adequate remedy available before the issuing court?
- Can a party challenge a show-cause notice for contempt in a constitutional petition before the proceedings have concluded or been referred to the High Court?
- Article 199, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.---This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of Peshawar High Court dated 9-4-1989 dismissing a Constitution Petition filed by the petitioners whereby they sought to challenge notice dated 18-10-1984 issued by the Civil Judge, First Class, Lahore to show cause why action in contempt should not be taken against them. The impugned notice was issued in execution proceedings of a compromise decree passed against petitioners in a suit riled by respondents 1 to 3. The High Court dismissed the Constitution Petition on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction in these words:-- "The writ petition in hand has been filed to challenge a notice which has been issued by Civil Judge 1st Class, Lahore. However under Article 199 of the Constitution this Court cannot exercise any jurisdiction in respect of the notice issued by respondent No.4 for the reason that he is not performing functions within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. In this connection the provisions of sub-clause (a) of clause (1) of Article 199 are very clear. This Court is not competent to entertain and adjudicate upon this writ petition on account of the bar of territorial jurisdiction. The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs."
2. Learned Additional Advocate-General appearing in support of the petition submits that since the decree was sought to be executed through contempt proceedings within the jurisdiction of the High Court, it was competent for the High Court to examine the legality of the impugned notice.
3. Learned Additional Advocate-General further urged that action in contempt cannot be taken for the enforcement of a decree against a judgment-debtor and in this behalf relied on certain reported cases.
4. We are however clearly of the view that since it is open to the petitioner to raise any pleas in defence to the show-cause notice before the learned Civil Judge who has issued the impugned notice, and in any case for the action in contempt against the petitioners the matter will have to be referred by the learned Civil Judge to the High Court where the petitioners would again be entitled to raise all the pleas that may be available to them on facts or in law, it was too premature a stage for the High Court to interfere in its Constitutional jurisdiction.
5. For these reasons there is no merit in this petition and it is dismissed.
Cited by 9 cases
- Kakakhail Traders vs Province of Punjab and others 2025 LHC 183
- KAKAKHAIL TRADERS Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB 2025 PLD 630
- Karamat Ullah Khan Chaudhry vs The Federation of Pakistan and 2 others 2017 LHC 4440
- KARAMAT ULLAH KHAN CHAUDHRY vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and 2 others 2018 PLC (C.S.) 555
- 1- Shahrukh Aamir Ubaid 2- AhsanIqbal vs National Highway & Motorway 2016 LHC 3553
- SHAHRUKH AAMIR UBAID vs NATIONAL HIGHWAY & MOTORWAY POLICE 2017 PLJ Lahore 258
- SHAHRUKH AAMIR UBAID vs NATIONAL HIGHWAY AND MOTORWAY POLICE 2017 PLJ Lahore 258, 2017 PLC (C.S.) 368
- Ch. ABDUL RAZZAQ vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others 1998 PLD Lahore 394
- ABDUL RAZZAQ Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN 1998 CLC 1077